![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Because a few of you expressed interested in reading my essay on men and violence, I offer you this:
Men have long been known as the violent half of the human species. They’ve been negatively labeled as the aggressors, the fighters, the beaters, and the abusers. Men are stereotyped as being ruthless in getting what they want, savage in protecting their territory, and they are also known to bully or abuse women into getting sexual intercourse from them. But, as with any stereotype, these cannot be attributed to all men. Nor are all men violent and blood-thirsty creatures that seek out innocent women and do harm to them. For every villain, there’s a valiant prince.
But what is interesting about the stereotype that men are violent, is the second half of the statement: men are violent towards women. This is certainly what we hear the most about. In the past twenty years, the topic of male violence towards women has been an increasingly newsworthy one. In nearly every section of the newspaper and every report on television news, there is a new report about some man that abused, raped, or otherwise hurt some woman for a wide array of reasons. Not to say that these topics aren’t important, because they are. However, what I’m interested in is male violence towards other males.
Any man that is 21 years of age or more has certainly seen or heard of or knows of a rowdy fight that took place at the neighborhood bar. In any section of the US, and presumably worldwide, bar fights are a somewhat natural occurrence. It can be something as simple as one drunken man bumping into another that can spark the violence, or something far more complicated and in depth. Whatever the reason, the fact is, these violent no-holds-barred brawls do happen.
On a more controversial note, it is probably no coincidence that we are at war and that every major world leader is a man. Though I am unsure of whether a woman could preempt war and violence, it does leave something to think about. Every major war that has been fought has been waged by men. Could it be as simple as one man unconsciously trying to one-up the other? And if so, is this the way that we want our governments won? These questions are far from being answered, and may never be truly understood.
The point is, however, that these questions have been asked. The subject of violence of men towards women has been investigated. The subjects of men being violent towards other men in social settings like bars and pubs has also been explored; so has the question of political leaders and the devolution to violence towards other nations. But so far, there has been at least one question of male violence that I’ve yet to see explored, let alone explained: violence of the normative heterosexual man towards minority groups, particularly homosexual men of any racial or ethnic background.
This is a topic that concerns me tremendously, considering that I myself am a homosexual man. I have experienced firsthand the violence that can flare up between the two groups, as well as the aftermath of that violence. I have seen and experienced not only the physical violence that can overtake a group, but also the psychological and verbal abuse and violence that happens much more than people not in the know realize.
I do tend to believe that “straight” violence towards homosexuals is no better or worse than towards any other minority group. That is, gay, lesbian, and bisexual people share many similarities in the experiences of prejudice, stereotype, and violence with racial and ethnic groups. The difference, however, is that a civil rights war has been fought on the behalf of racial minorities, and for many sanctions of government, that war has been won. Though much corruption in policy and political stances still exists for those groups, it seems as if homosexuals have been left behind to climb the ladder themselves.
With that being said, I believe that straight male violence towards gay men is rampant, unchecked, and underreported. The basic problem is that when this violence, coined “gay-bashing,” occurs, the victim seldom reports the bashing because of the possible repercussions of doing such a thing. Several possible explanations for underreporting is that some gay men feel responsible for the violence, or they fear being blamed for the violence, or they are ashamed at “losing” the fight. Whatever the reason, gay-bashing is grossly underreported to the authorities.
The fact is, gay-bashings happen constantly, all over America and other countries. Specifically in the school system, where just the suspicion of being a homosexual can be a sentence for pain, embarrassment, and encourage the risk of being ostracized from peers and relationships. What is doubly sad about the group of gay men being beaten and abused in school is that is very often known as “boys being boys,” or “just a case of simple bullying.” These instances are not just “simple bullying.” They are cases violence towards a minority group and towards someone unable to ask for help.
The question I raise is this: why is violence of straight men towards gay men any less important or any less investigated than violence of straight men against straight women, other straight men, or racial minorities? Because what it comes down to is that violence of any form is dangerous, but male violence towards others is what is most “interesting” in terms of research, the goal of which is to understand violence. Therefore, taking a deeper look male violence towards other groups would help in that understanding, wouldn’t it?
And now, I've just finished my American Novel exam. So I'm going to go to the bar and enjoy myself some yummy delicious alkie.
Nope, no escapism here.
Men have long been known as the violent half of the human species. They’ve been negatively labeled as the aggressors, the fighters, the beaters, and the abusers. Men are stereotyped as being ruthless in getting what they want, savage in protecting their territory, and they are also known to bully or abuse women into getting sexual intercourse from them. But, as with any stereotype, these cannot be attributed to all men. Nor are all men violent and blood-thirsty creatures that seek out innocent women and do harm to them. For every villain, there’s a valiant prince.
But what is interesting about the stereotype that men are violent, is the second half of the statement: men are violent towards women. This is certainly what we hear the most about. In the past twenty years, the topic of male violence towards women has been an increasingly newsworthy one. In nearly every section of the newspaper and every report on television news, there is a new report about some man that abused, raped, or otherwise hurt some woman for a wide array of reasons. Not to say that these topics aren’t important, because they are. However, what I’m interested in is male violence towards other males.
Any man that is 21 years of age or more has certainly seen or heard of or knows of a rowdy fight that took place at the neighborhood bar. In any section of the US, and presumably worldwide, bar fights are a somewhat natural occurrence. It can be something as simple as one drunken man bumping into another that can spark the violence, or something far more complicated and in depth. Whatever the reason, the fact is, these violent no-holds-barred brawls do happen.
On a more controversial note, it is probably no coincidence that we are at war and that every major world leader is a man. Though I am unsure of whether a woman could preempt war and violence, it does leave something to think about. Every major war that has been fought has been waged by men. Could it be as simple as one man unconsciously trying to one-up the other? And if so, is this the way that we want our governments won? These questions are far from being answered, and may never be truly understood.
The point is, however, that these questions have been asked. The subject of violence of men towards women has been investigated. The subjects of men being violent towards other men in social settings like bars and pubs has also been explored; so has the question of political leaders and the devolution to violence towards other nations. But so far, there has been at least one question of male violence that I’ve yet to see explored, let alone explained: violence of the normative heterosexual man towards minority groups, particularly homosexual men of any racial or ethnic background.
This is a topic that concerns me tremendously, considering that I myself am a homosexual man. I have experienced firsthand the violence that can flare up between the two groups, as well as the aftermath of that violence. I have seen and experienced not only the physical violence that can overtake a group, but also the psychological and verbal abuse and violence that happens much more than people not in the know realize.
I do tend to believe that “straight” violence towards homosexuals is no better or worse than towards any other minority group. That is, gay, lesbian, and bisexual people share many similarities in the experiences of prejudice, stereotype, and violence with racial and ethnic groups. The difference, however, is that a civil rights war has been fought on the behalf of racial minorities, and for many sanctions of government, that war has been won. Though much corruption in policy and political stances still exists for those groups, it seems as if homosexuals have been left behind to climb the ladder themselves.
With that being said, I believe that straight male violence towards gay men is rampant, unchecked, and underreported. The basic problem is that when this violence, coined “gay-bashing,” occurs, the victim seldom reports the bashing because of the possible repercussions of doing such a thing. Several possible explanations for underreporting is that some gay men feel responsible for the violence, or they fear being blamed for the violence, or they are ashamed at “losing” the fight. Whatever the reason, gay-bashing is grossly underreported to the authorities.
The fact is, gay-bashings happen constantly, all over America and other countries. Specifically in the school system, where just the suspicion of being a homosexual can be a sentence for pain, embarrassment, and encourage the risk of being ostracized from peers and relationships. What is doubly sad about the group of gay men being beaten and abused in school is that is very often known as “boys being boys,” or “just a case of simple bullying.” These instances are not just “simple bullying.” They are cases violence towards a minority group and towards someone unable to ask for help.
The question I raise is this: why is violence of straight men towards gay men any less important or any less investigated than violence of straight men against straight women, other straight men, or racial minorities? Because what it comes down to is that violence of any form is dangerous, but male violence towards others is what is most “interesting” in terms of research, the goal of which is to understand violence. Therefore, taking a deeper look male violence towards other groups would help in that understanding, wouldn’t it?
And now, I've just finished my American Novel exam. So I'm going to go to the bar and enjoy myself some yummy delicious alkie.
Nope, no escapism here.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
From:
no subject
And very true. It's unfortunate, but our world has a very selective hearing/seeing sort of life. If they don't like it, they'll pretend it's not there until it goes away.
A hug and a snog are in order for an essay like that. Mwah! ^_^
~Nebula
From:
no subject
Which is exactly what the upperclass white heterosexual male has been trying to do for centuries. It has *never* worked; I don't understand why they haven't tried a new tactic.
A hug and a snog are in order for an essay like that. Mwah! ^_^
I do so loves me some Nebula snogs! Thanks, babe!
From:
no subject
Have fun at the bars!!!!
From:
no subject
He wrote a page-long response to it, so I'd say "yes" to that assumption:)
From:
no subject
One thing I have to take issue with: "Every major war that has been fought has been waged by men."
I know Margaret Thatcher and Queen Elizabeth I were pretty butch, but those
are just two examples off the top of my head. I'm sure there are plenty women who have been head of state during wars their country was involved in.
Also, diverting a bit, I suspect that women's violence towards men and children has also been greatly under-reported, due to embarrassment or fear.
From:
no subject
I totally agree with that statement, but at least from my perspective it is at least *beginning* to be researched. Meaning that someone has taken an interest in that phenomenon and is trying to do something about it. Which is great, but that just further supports my point.
As to the QE and MT as heads of state, you are once again (unsuprisingly :)) correct. However, I wager that those wars were for political reasons - land, mostly, but also poverty and power, etc. I argue that for the men waging war, it is just as much a "Mine is bigger than yours is" war as it is a political standpoint.
From:
no subject
Whether its guns, wallets, territories or dicks!
(I've always suspected both QE and MT were men in drag...)
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
Hopefully there's nothing ironic in you mentioning pub fights and then heading off to a pub! Be safe!
From:
no subject
Exactly. Which is why the Matthew Shepard case was so extraordinary and is still commemorated this many years later - it blew a hole big enough in the psyche of of societal norms that for the first time since STONEWALL people were forced to examine a very large problem. I only wish we could have more coverage of the violence that *still* occurs.
From:
no subject