Walk a mile in her shoes

The other day, I posted about men who want to help prevent violence against women.

Since then, there's been yet another femicide in the GTA.

Well guys, it's time to step up.

If you can.

Walk a Mile in Her Shoes from Walk A Mile Toronto on Vimeo.

Heh.

This fall, thousands of men will take over the city’s business core in high-heeled shoes to raise awareness – and funds – for the White Ribbon Campaign: the world’s largest effort of men working to end violence against women. 

On Thursday, October 1st 2009, from noon to 2 p.m. at Nathan Phillips Square, men will participate in Walk a Mile in her Shoes®; an event during which men will literally walk one mile in women’s shoes. It's not an easy feat, but it’s a fun way to get people talking about something that’s often difficult to discuss: gender relations and sexual violence.

“We know that 75% of Canadian men feel it is important that men speak out about violence against women,” says Todd Minerson, Executive Director of the White Ribbon Campaign. “The Walk gives men the opportunity to do just that”. 

But the Walk isn’t limited to men alone. Men, women and kids can register online to take part at www.walkamiletoronto.org. 

If you can't do it -- either because you have neither the time nor the tootsies -- please volunteer, donate or sponsor!

Comments

[MensRightsNow]

No thanks, violence against women is no different than violence angainst anyone else. No special status. Sorry!

[Antonia]

So I gather you're too chicken to walk in high heels?

[mozo]

Re: Antonia's statement "Since then, there's been yet another femicide in the GTA."

I see there was also another manicide in the GTA: http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/696070

Perhaps it was an honour killing.

[Antonia]

Okay, Mozo, I am trying not to laugh because this is a tragedy.

[The Stygian and his Shemitish Dogs]

Esteemed and Beautiful Moderator, Mozo de Beaux Yeux,

There you go again with your stereotyping. A lot of women I know don't wear high heels. Bit like Hedy Fry's photo of the "ugly American" - I guess some women don't count. In any case, I have big clodhopping feet which might be damaged if I squeeze them into high heels - foot binding as solidarity? - I don't think so. But count me in on any campaign against violence against women.

[Kat]

The first two commenters (not counting Antonia's replies) seem to indicate that looking at violence one reason at a time to stop it is counter-productive.

Are they against school bullying programmes as well? Road rage, maybe? Gun control? Programmes aimed at getting kids to stop forming/joining gangs? Or just ones that look at stopping violence against women?

Just because someone is pro-action for a given event doesn't mean they are anti-action on other events.

This reminds me of the guy I went to high school with who said they wouldn't quit smoking until industrial air pollution was stopped.

[PaulR]

Re: Antonia's statement "Okay, Mozo, I am trying not to laugh because this is a tragedy."

Well, there's this heroic story about the Hamilton guy who saved a baby from a bottle-wielding maniac who had pulled the kid from his mother in a parking lot. It wouldn't have tripped your "Men killing women" Google news feed.

http://www.thestar.com/article/694065

[Jim M]

I'm wondering if MRN sees the connection between his comment on this post and his last MRN comment on this blog, which is under the recent post entitled, "Full of holes." Dare I ask?

[Ashley]

Re: MensRighstNow

Ok, so following your logic does that mean that you think people shouldn't bother walking to end cancer? After all, there are so many others ways to die and it would be wrong to give special status to cancer.

[MensRightsNow]

Again....women are no more important than men, and neither are their tragedies. All violence is tragic irrespective of who commits the violence. It's amazing the excuses those on the feminist left make for female violence but never explore the root causes of male violence.

Ever notice most violent men are raised by women?

[Daniela]

I will be taking a vacation day off of work to volunteer all day for this important cause.

If you can't volunteer, donate.

If you can't donate, volunteer.

[mozo]

Kat, I wasn't indicating any judgment about stopping violence against women. I was being grumpy and pedantic about Antonia's enthusiastic use of the term "femicide" and her strongly stated dislike of the term "honour killing".

All targeted violence needs to be eradicated; there is more than enough random volence as it is. This includes assault based on sex, sexual preference, race, religion, creed, etc.

By the way, I don't know if I went to your high school but I do smoke. It has nothing to do with the pollution coming from Stelco.

[PaulR]

Kat, nobody is against standing against violence against women.
The problem here is that it is narcissistic to the point of self-parody, to take such a narrow view of DV and certain targets of violence.

Picture a cartoon of a lone feminist standing at the stern of the Titanic, wailing at the tragedy and injustice that *women* will be killed.

It's not that women shouldn't be saved, or that people are against women being saved. The thrust of the criticism is that the stark omission of concern and outright hostility for other victims who face the same circumstances but aren't women, reveals a lack of basic human concern for people who don't fit the "tribe". It's packaged and sold as as progressive thinking, but it is as bigotted as any other biopolitic. And in effect, with its disporportionate emphasis on women's safety and characterization of men as little more than violent rutting beasts for whom civility is a constant ritualized struggle, it is an active reconstruction of a chivalric narrative best left in the past.

If I won't donate to charities that require religious indoctrination as a prerequisite to doling aid, I certainly would not donate to "anti-violence" advocacy movements that indoctrinate their mob with hateful misandry, while continuing to promote misinformation that ends up distracting real research and real advocates efforts from reducing violence.

[Ashley]

PaulR, MensRighstNow, and anyone else who holds a similar perspective,

Where on earth did this idea come from that a person who believes strongly in a cause such as violence against women believes that their cause is the only one worth supporting and all others are inferior? Do you really think that feminists and people who strive to end violence against women think that stopping violence against women is more important than stopping violence against men? Where did you get that idea? Is there one woman out there saying that violence against women is worse than violence against men and somehow you have decided we all think that? Campaigns such as "Walk a mile in her shoes" target specific types of violence because its easier to make a change in something when you do it piece by piece, like ending violence that falls under the category of "hate crimes" and yes, violence against women (when it is carried out for the sole reason that the victim is a women) is considered a hate crime.

So to sum up an idea that seems to be too difficult for you to grasp: a person who is against a certain injustice is not automatically of the opinion that their injustice is more important than any others. Myself for example, I would love to support a cause called "End all bad things" but taking on a more realistic goal like "End violence against women" seems like a much more effective way to bring about change.

[PaulR]

Ashley - you asked a question to me about where I got the idea, and I'll answer it.

The answer is this blog. Several times now, it's been pointed out that violence against men vastly exceeds violence against women - both death rates and assault rates. Vastly. For the most part, Western society has been, and continues to be, conditioned to have men protect women - any woman - from harm. And yet we march against violence against women.

So they change the subject quickly to domestic violence, realizing their body count won't be high enough with a general violence game - a more "niche" venture. Except the data which actually examine both genders in DV situations within the past 5 years indicates extremely close battery and death rates between men and women in domestic partnerships, and it's identical in same-sex relationships. And when we throw on a "who *initiated* the violence - it becomes an even split. Repeatedly, this has been met on this blog with outright dismissal and mockery. Despite being in the identical situation as the women, I recall Antonia telling men to "get their own movement."

Identical scenarios. Identical causes, stakes and circumstances. We march for the women though, and the men can go fly a kite.

What that says to me is that this is not about ending violence at all, and it's not even about solidarity with domestic violence survivors. Why go to such length to alienate the male survivors and advocates who would include them? There's simply no room for that in the feminist script. It's about hating men, pure and simple. While a couple of posts ago, this blog posted an endorsement of some dude who wrote a book calling on men to save women, in the context of shaming men in Brooklyn who apparently did not risk their lives to help a woman who was shot to death by her husband. What were they to do - take a bullet for her? That's what's expected - of the *men*. The women? Not so much. Meanwhile there was no mention of the recent Hamilton case, right next door, where a guy wrestled with a broken bottle wielding maniac to get a kid back to her mother. Men, in this movement, get noticed for their crimes.

"End violence against women" is indeed an effective way to organize people. By characterizing it on tribal lines rather than on the behavior we want to change - we can have a face of a victim and of an attacker. It makes it a lot easier when we can point at a visibly identifiable other and claim that it's all THEIR fault. But it doesn't make it any less bigotted. As bell hooks said, "You cannot tear down the master's house using the master's tools." You can't fight sexism and hate by engaging in sexism and hate, however much easier it would be.

[MensRightsNow]

Ashley...but there is more violence against men. 3X more. The feminist logic is to leave men out of the debate, label them all potentially violent, potential rapists and imprison them. How do feminists expect to curb violence against women, as statistically rare as it is, by marginalizing men? The same men who overwhelming protect and still provide for these same women out of conditioned chivalry.

Women are not innocent when it comes to the many forms of abuse, particularly pyschological and emotional abuse. Women have to stop playing the victim and take resonsibility for their brutal behaviour as well. They never do!

Have a parade every day for all I care, it won't change the fact that women are also part of the problem.

[Antonia]

Yeah, right guys.

That's why we wear ''killer heels.''

As to violence against men, nobody says it doesn't exist. But typically it's called ''violent crime'' -- and you know why? Because most violent crime is committed by .... um ... let me Google that now ... be right back ...

[Antonia]

... okay, I looked it up.

Guess what?

MEN kill more men then women kill men. Lots more.

Now, let's say it has NOTHING to do with gender. That's what you guys say. And I'll buy that. Sure, fine.

So let's look, instead, at how these killings are carried out.

Lots of them by guns.

Lots of men -- and women -- get killed by men with guns.

So how come you guys are here trashing feminists when you should be doing something about getting rid of guns?

And by the way, nobody said anybody should ''take a bullet'' for that woman in Brooklyn. But intimidating him with your car is a lot more decent than driving off.

[Ashley]

It's actually astonishing how wrong you guys are getting all this.

"Women have to stop playing the victim and take resonsibility for their brutal behaviour as well." - MensRightsNow

Really? I didn't realize that just because a small percentage of the female population commit violent crimes that means the rest of us women have less of a right to be safe. Apparently in your books, all the members of a certain demographic should pay for the actions of a few people in that demographic. Huh. Interesting. In that case I suggest you go look up some statistics of how many men vs. how many women are arrested for committing violent crimes.

"Several times now, it's been pointed out that violence against men vastly exceeds violence against women - both death rates and assault rates" - PaulR

Sorry, I asked you for where you got the idea that feminists consider violence against women more important than violence against men, what you found was the fact that statistically it happens more often. That's not the same.

"Despite being in the identical situation as the women, I recall Antonia telling men to "get their own movement." - PaulR

You really should get your own movement, and I for one will support it. I think it would be a much better use of your time to work towards ending violence against men instead of spending all day trying to tell us how you think its pointless trying to end violence against women, don't you agree?

[Antonia]

Paul has a movement. It's called the ''men's rights movement.'' Google it.

Here are a couple of sites that pop up right off the top:
http://exposingfeminism.wordpress.com/2008/04/22/the-mens-rights-movement-dispelling-some-common-myths/
http://www.mens-rights.net/

Note how the target is almost always feminism. It's never guns, gun violence or other violence. It's never sexual assault. It's never improving the education system so the sexes have more respect for one another.

Now why is that? Could it be that MRA (men's rights activists) believe that, once women started gaining independence, competing with them for jobs, becoming their bosses even, their dominance was lessened?

Hmmm ...

As for ''moving the cheese,'' well Paul, you do that every time you don't have an answer. You also cut the cheese with long-winded quotes.

[Antonia]

I see the mods did not allow PaulR's last post so my remark about ''cutting the cheese'' may not make sense.

On the other hand, regular readers will certainly get the ... drift.

[PaulR]

"MEN kill more men then women kill men. Lots more."
--------------
Lets see if I can squeeze this variant past the mods.

So we'll put "Stop men's violence against women" on a T-shirt, and we can all get behind that and feel proud of it. How could such a noble and benign sentiment offend? Who wouldn't want to stop men's violence against women, after all?

What if we swapped the biopolitical groups (ie "men") for another visibly identifiable group, using the same slogan intact? To be a fair comparison it would need to be a visibly identifiable group with higher rate of crime against another visibly identifiable group, and an even higher rate of crime against their own group.

There are several ways to parse that one, so it shouldn't be too hard to fill in the blanks with your groups, and it really doesn't matter which visible group you use (except men). I expect it will all come out the same.

"Stop X violence against Y people."

Now picture a whole clan of people wearing that slogan, and you are marching with them. Still proud? Still benign? If it felt so right a moment ago, why not now?

"But that's different!" you say.

Is it different? How is it different?

This needn't be a hypothetical exercise, mind you. There are real and well-known organizations that build their advocacy efforts around calling out pathologies and criminal behaviour within specific visibly identiable groups, with the aim of supporting and protecting their own group from them. Most of us have a well-formed opinion of them that needn't be reconsidered. So why this one, single, exception, with men?

[Antonia]

It's not up yet but I am writing this on the assumption that PaulR's last comment, written at 1:30 a.m. or so will get past the mods.

Let me make it really simple Paul.

I contribute to all sorts of animal charities, such as the OSPCA, the Toronto Humane Society, The David Sheldrick Trust. I give a percentage of my weekly salary to the United Way. Last week I sponsored a friend in a breast cancer rowing event to the tune of $100. My niece is participating in a diabetes event and I am sponsoring her. My cousin is doing the AIDS walk and I am sponsoring her. I am doing a walkathon myself in aid of a dog rescue organization next weekend. (If you want to sponsor me, please email me at az@thestar.ca). I also give to Greenpeace.

Because I focus on these groups, does it mean that I don't care about lung cancer or the Scott Mission?

No it does not.

It means I have so much energy, so much time, so many resources.

And yet, by your incredibly flawed inductive reasoning, I would condemn lung cancer sufferers to painful deaths and hungry homeless people to the cold and dangerous streets.

Seems to me that there are FAR MORE news media, websites and blogs devoted to violent crime in general than to violence against women committed by intimates.

But here you are screaming about this tiny corner of cyberspace.

Why is that Paul? Men's Rights Now? Anybody care to answer?

[...pat.]

Because it's easier to attempt magician misdirection than deal with the issue.

[steve]

'...but there is more violence against men. 3X more.'

Guys, the problem with this argument is that male victims of violence, while maybe more in number, are not generally victimized on the basis of their gender as is the case with women. You can't look at the problem purely from a numbers standpoint.

Humour us. Take a Women's Studies course. Speak to someone who works with abused women. The problem runs deeper than a simple scorecard.

[MensRightsNow]

Steve, you're right. Because single mothers abuse and kill their children more than anyone else...let's get a march going!

"Humans against single mothers who kill and abuse children"

[Antonia]

Yeah Sure. Whatever you say ''Men's Rights Now.''

Single mothers -- I assume you mean women who have divorced their husbands here since they are your main target, along with feminists -- are murderous moms!

''Males commit majority of family-related violence against children and youth

''In 2006, male family members were identified as the
accused in 96% of all family-related sexual assaults and
in 71% of family-related physical assaults against children
and youth. Fathers4 were involved in 35% of sexual assault
incidents against their children, followed by male extended
family members (33%) and brothers (28%).

''Female family members were seldom identified as
perpetrators of violence against young persons (4% of
family related sexual assaults and 29% of physical assaults).
Of all child and youth victims of family inflicted physical
assaults committed by females, 70% were assaulted by
their mother, 16% by a sister, 13% by an extended family
member and 1% by a spouse or ex-spouse.''

Family Violence in Canada: A Statistical Profile
2008
Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics

http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/Collection/Statcan/85-224-X/85-224-XIE.html

I can't find a single reliable statistics/research site to back up your claim. Can you?

But g'head: Keep giving us info from anti-feminist sites like this one.
http://fathersforlife.org/articles/report/resptojw.htm

or this one

http://parentalalienationcanada.blogspot.com/2009/01/some-interesting-statistics-on-single.html

Do I think children are better off with two parents? Absolutely.
Do I think children are better off with two parents who are abusive toward each other? Absolutely not.

Do I think single mothers are poorer than married ones? Absolutely.
Do I think a lot of them have been put in that position by controlling ex-husbands who refuse to contribute financially to the welfare of their kids?
What do you think?

Every time you post, your agenda becomes clearer and clearer.

[steve]

Why is it that anti-feminist rhetoric amounts to nothing more than who can build the bigger sandcastle. Bigger is better. Using patriarchy to defend patriarchy. Dig deeper, PaulR and MRN.
...pat, I agree one-hundred percent.
Well sourced, Antonia. Keep up the good work.
later.
steve

[PaulR]

"Humour us. Take a Women's Studies course. Speak to someone who works with abused women." ---steven
---------
My Women's Studies postgrad circa the mid 90's earned me a A- in those courses. How was yours? I credit my feminist postgrad work with bringing a keen gender awareness to my perception. I only diverged when I eventually began to measure both genders with the same yardstick, when I gauged the reaction of my feminist classmates to Bobbitt's amputation. I remain happily married to a former director of a venerable feminist theater, where I was able to get to know a number of abused women and hear their stories, as well as observing how they acted with each other. I also used to date the President of the Womyn's Center on campus. We parted on benign terms, unrelated to politics. Does my feminist resume stack up ok? You want me to humour you? I've already *been* there --a true believer. Can you say you've cognizantly questioned your POV to the same degree?

"The problem runs deeper than a simple scorecard." --steven
--------
To be fair, it ran precisely as deep as a simple scorecard when Antonia originally offered that argument as a justification for her view. When that justification disintegrated under examination, the problem became deeper. Hence my "moving the cheese" motif, which was part of a large post that did not make it past the mods, though I enjoyed Antonia's "cutting the cheese retort" regardless.

"the problem with this argument is that male victims of violence, while maybe more in number, are not generally victimized on the basis of their gender as is the case with women."
------------
Except that by and large, the only female victims of violence occur within the specific contexts of domestic violence and rape, whereas men are exposed to much more violence for a variety of reasons in addition to those ones.

Even looking at domestic violence rates against women specifically, they aren't beaten "because they are women". They are beaten for a whole host of reasons, which are largely *identical* to the reasons why gay couples (male and female) are violent. In fact, at there was a DV situation with a gay female "feminist" couple at the Feminist theater my wife worked at - and it was within the context of a "stop men's violence against women" play, performed annually at a local college and highschools.

As for rape, it's physically difficult for women to rape men. But men rape men within the gay community, and within prison. I have a gay male friend who was raped, and he wasn't targetted, "because he is a woman." Nor was he able to get help from any rape crisis centers. He'd have a lot in common with any woman who was raped, and perhaps a lot to offer such advocacy in energy and emotion. But he's a man, and falls on the wrong side of that t-shirt slogan "stop men's violence against women."

"You can't look at this problem from a purely numbers standpoint." -steven
----------
My point egg-zactly.

[Antonia]

Yo Paul.

In case you haven't noticed, this blog champions LGBT rights, and has included many posts about hate crimes against gays.

Again, a small corner of the corporate mediasphere where these things are discussed, like I discuss women's rights.

You can rattle on and on and on endlessly in your long-winded and irrelevant posts about how I should be going on about male on male violence, like there's NEVER any coverage of drunk guys getting into fights, gang violence and the like.

That's not my job. There's plenty of people who write about that stuff EVERY day.

There is nobody in the corporate media business, to my knowledge, who covers women's and gay rights on a regular basis but me.

So why do you think i should stop, or dilute this coverage?

Why does it bother you that it gets special attention in one little place?

If this were a blog about, I dunno, carpentry, would you be butting in and charging anti-plumbing bias against the blogger?

How much time do you spend trolling the hateful and misogynist men's rights sites and straightening them out?

Do you think you can answer directly in less than 1000 words?

Quit wasting all our time.

Finally, I can delete your replies, although I can't publish them.

So keep it short. You drag down my comments threads.

[The Stygian and his Shemitish Dogs]

"Because it's easier to attempt magician misdirection than deal with the issue."

Pat Pet,

This "attempted magician misdirection" is often what happens when I raise certain cultural issues on threads like this.

Paul, MRN,

If you're looking for a way to attack feminism, the female-violence-against-men line isn't really the way to go.

Most men simply don't commit acts of violence against women, and view the idea of women doing the same to them with ... a touch of ..."this can't be happening". If you keep on about this you do lose some people.

Meanwhile, though, much more promising is calling feminists out on the hypocrisy when they try and skirt the problem of, e.g., honour killings.

But when all is said and done, this is the Esteemed and Beautiful Moderator's blog, and it's up to her whether we're allowed to post at all, even if "There is nobody in the corporate media business, to my knowledge, who covers women's and gay rights on a regular basis but me" appears ... er... slightly skewed.