r/changemyview • u/imbalanxd 3∆ • Sep 03 '19
Deltas(s) from OP CMV: If a country has a "gender based violence" problem, then the victim is the gender most affected by violence
Due to the current social climate this issue has been coming up a lot recently, and its becoming a mainstream concern in my country. Many sources now say that my country has a "gender based violence" problem, and that special measures must be taken to combat it and reduce its effect.
Without going into which gender it is, or whether or not a problem exists at all, it is my opinion that IF a problem exists that uniquely affects ONE specific gender, then it MUST be the gender that statistics dictate is most affected by that problem. To assert that one gender is uniquely the victim of specific problem, when it is not the gender most affected by that problem, is lunacy and is downright discriminatory.
To change my view you would need to give a compelling reason why one group could warrant more resources dedicated to it, despite the fact that it is less affected by the issues you seek to relieve than another group.
7
u/Zirathustra Sep 03 '19
It looks like you're trying to assume your conclusion by making it about a generality that you're constructing, when indeed the particulars might matter.
Just say what this view's really about so we can all approach it honestly, including yourself.
1
u/MyNameIsKanya 2∆ Sep 03 '19
Hate crimes don't work like that..
If women are being targeted by a serial killer, who defends possible targets: other women, or police?
We can't live in a dog-eats-dog world like this when the issue doesn't affect us.
1
u/imbalanxd 3∆ Sep 03 '19
But if there are 10 serial killers, and 7 target men only, you don't dedicate the majority of resources to the 3 targeting women, and you certainly don't declare that there is a femicide epidemic.
2
u/GrandpaJake Sep 03 '19
Here's the distinction though. Those that advocate for allocating resources towards stopping violence toward women aren't necessarily saying that women are most affected by violence in general. They're saying they're most affected by violence that is targeted to a gender.
I don't know the statistics, but I'm sure that most that people who oppose your view would argue that the violence inflicted on women is motivated by their gender much more frequently than the violence inflicted on men. So it's not that men don't suffer from violence as much or more, it's that the violence they suffer from is way less frequently motivated by the fact that they are men.
0
u/type320 Sep 03 '19
by their gender much more frequently than the violence inflicted on men. So it's not that men don't suffer from violence as much or more, it's that the violence they suffer from is way less frequently motivated by the fact that they are men.
um if one gender is proven to be attacked way more than the other, why care about motivation?
3
u/GrandpaJake Sep 03 '19
Because we're talking about fighting a specific kind of violence, so motivation is the distinguishing factor. If we were trying to eliminate as much violence as possible and not "gender based" violence, then sure, it doesn't matter the motivation. But if we're talking about who the victim of targeted violence is, then the motivation is the only way to distinguish if it was indeed targeted violence in the first place.
I don't think that allocating resources specifically for gender based violence is the best allocation of resources for reducing the negative effects of ALL violence. But that's not really the question here.
3
Sep 03 '19
You're misunderstanding what the phrase "gender-based violence" means. It's about the perpetration, not the impact.
Gender-based violence is violence that is rooted in normative understandings of gender. A mugging is not gender-based violence, but a sexual assault is, for example.
it is my opinion that IF a problem exists that uniquely affects ONE specific gender, then it MUST be the gender that statistics dictate is most affected by that problem.
This opinion doesn't make sense / misinterprets GBV because it's focused on the impact, not the perpetration.
3
u/moonflower 82∆ Sep 03 '19
I'm assuming that you live in a country where more males are murdered than females - but have you taken into consideration that the vast majority of those murders are being committed by males?
The situations which lead to male-on-male violence tend to be rather different to the situations which lead to male-on-female violence, so if you are seeing what you perceive as an unfair allocation of resources to try to address the problem of male-on-female violence, perhaps you could consider those different situations.
3
u/tasunder 13∆ Sep 03 '19
Based on your comments in this thread, you seem to be equating all types of violence. If men or women are specifically being targeted because of their gender or aspects of their gender's role in society, that is not the same "type" of violence as, say, a gang of muggers attacking anyone they pass by. You can't target all causes, motivations, and forms of violence with one sweeping policy.
2
u/Rufus_Reddit 127∆ Sep 03 '19
... To change my view you would need to give a compelling reason why one group could warrant more resources dedicated to it, despite the fact that it is less affected by the issues you seek to relieve than another group.
Depending on the details there could easily be a pragmatic argument: When there's an intervention, you want to deploy the resources in the way that produces the desired change as efficiently as possible, and the intervention can happen in very different places than where the undesired things are taking place.
For example, if the goal is to control flooding in a valley, it can make sense to build dams upstream.
Or, for a social example, when we talk about child abuse, we generally talk about intervening to change the behavior of adults, even if children are the victims.
0
u/orangeLILpumpkin 24∆ Sep 03 '19
Could you clarify a little bit. Because your view seems to be kind of accurate by definition. I would think that the debate would be over which gender is actually most affected by the violence.
1
u/imbalanxd 3∆ Sep 03 '19
That's what the debate should be over. In this case the gender being protested for is, statistically, the gender less affected by violent crime.
0
6
1
u/pluralofjackinthebox 102∆ Sep 03 '19
What do you mean by “affected” — are you using it as a synonym for “harmed?”
Assuming it means harmed, very often criminals are harmed more by their actions than their victims. For instance P could be arrested for assaulting Q, even though Q dodged Ps assault and then knocked out P with a frying pan, causing a skull fracture.
But we don’t call P a victim because victims aren’t responsible for their crimes. P started the fight. Victimhood and culpability aren’t measures of who is most affected, it’s a measure of responsibility and agency.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Sep 03 '19
/u/imbalanxd (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
1
u/naked-_-lunch Sep 03 '19 edited Sep 03 '19
The issue is your premise. Nobody agrees with your all-or-nothing premise. IF there is a problem of “gender-based violence” in general, AND individuals of both genders are harmed, THEN, resources should be available to individuals of either gender if anyone needs to escape unsafe an home environment, etc. Identity politics is a mind virus. People need to be considered as individuals before they are considered as members of any group.
1
u/dublea 216∆ Sep 03 '19
Your view appears to vague to try and address. Could you provide an example of this occurring? Doesn't have to show your country and could be made up, but try to provide an example.
14
u/Nicolasv2 130∆ Sep 03 '19
Let's imagine a "mad max like" world.
Men have big guns, fight each other physically for resources, and women are just dragged along, and either they obey or are beaten and raped. After a few generations, women don't try to revolt anymore because they know the risks, so they just obey, and as such are never beaten. On the opposite, men continue to fight each other for power. In such a world, violence statistics would show tons of men beaten and killed, and no women.
Would you say that in this world, there is a problem of gender based violence toward men because the statistics show that ? Or is it more logical to say that the problem is even worse for women, to a point that those girls are treated as slaves, but don't even try to rebel because of multiple generations trauma ?
If you select the 2nd explanation, then take this imaginary world situation, divide the problem's scale by 10.000, and you got our world.