This explains a lot about some Taliban policies that superficially make no sense (like ordering the closure of beauty parlors, which were already women-only spaces and didn't raise any issues of sexual propriety).
The social ideal they're trying to enforce here is that men should have same-gender social networks beyond their extended families, but women should not. It seems as if family members might not be effective as members of a Reverse Dominance Coalition... the power of those relationships is basically "the strength of weak ties".
Thank you for this. It is super helpful for women who may seem/act/feel otherwise reasonably independent and yet struggle against male dominance in the private/household sphere. So common! I will use this in workshops and trainings.
It appears as if the trend in wealthy, individualistic societies is for increasing numbers of women to remain single rather than get married, precisely due to concerns that they will be subject to violence and abuse. My guess is that there are generational effects where the social pressure for women to get married and have children has been decreasing in these countries, and it isn’t very many generations since women both legal and functional emancipation due to the combination of a post industrial economy, increased workforce participation of women and the greater control of fertility afforded by hormonal birth control.
Wonderful! I notice the graph on "percentage of wives disagreeing that men should be the achievers, women should be at home," etc. starts levelling off in the 90s and even declining. Upsetting/troubling!
I like and agree with most of the article but the 25% cite of women in America having been slapped by an intimate partner is not credible and completely threw me off. Clicking on the link doesn’t give me anything specific on this. I think there are enough real troubling cites that it’s a mistake to use ones that are questionable or wrong and undermines the strong points. (And makes it seem like it’s impossible to greatly reduce the prevalence of DV, but prevalence of DV today varies greatly by culture - and I know that’s really what you’re saying as well.) I have never been subject to sexual violence or intimate partner mistreatment of any kind and I can accept that I’m lucky but accepting that I’m a literal unicorn is a stretch and cites that suggest it really make me scratch my head. I work regularly with victims of DV so I’m well aware of how real and destructive it is but it’s not a majority of relationships or a majority of women who experience it or a majority of men in America that commit it.
Among the Igbo-Nigeria in precolonial times, married women formed groups that were 'reverse dominance groups.' The could judge and impose penalties against men. It was community based and the Church community replaced the group with the reactionary Christian Mothers Group, changing their character completely from a power group to a mere career leader.
If people are going to insist on a feminist based etiology of Intimate Partner Violence, then little will continue to be understood about the prevalence and causes and prevention.
E.g.. Why the Duluth model for IPV prevention is ineffective, but they continue with it anyway.
The research is there if anyone cares to look, but what the public are fed is misleading at best.
Horror stories, however disgusting they may be where X did something awful to Y are now retold as Gender-Based violence, and thus we are led back to square one in understanding.
It's precisely the expression of surprise that it continues in more egalitarian places shows how little understanding people have.
See Don Dutton, Louise Dixon, Nicola Graham-Kevan, Deborah Capaldi, Murray Strauss, etc, etc.
This explains a lot about some Taliban policies that superficially make no sense (like ordering the closure of beauty parlors, which were already women-only spaces and didn't raise any issues of sexual propriety).
The social ideal they're trying to enforce here is that men should have same-gender social networks beyond their extended families, but women should not. It seems as if family members might not be effective as members of a Reverse Dominance Coalition... the power of those relationships is basically "the strength of weak ties".
Great example!!!! Absolutely!! 👍
Thank you for this. It is super helpful for women who may seem/act/feel otherwise reasonably independent and yet struggle against male dominance in the private/household sphere. So common! I will use this in workshops and trainings.
We all need a little help from our friends!
It appears as if the trend in wealthy, individualistic societies is for increasing numbers of women to remain single rather than get married, precisely due to concerns that they will be subject to violence and abuse. My guess is that there are generational effects where the social pressure for women to get married and have children has been decreasing in these countries, and it isn’t very many generations since women both legal and functional emancipation due to the combination of a post industrial economy, increased workforce participation of women and the greater control of fertility afforded by hormonal birth control.
Wonderful! I notice the graph on "percentage of wives disagreeing that men should be the achievers, women should be at home," etc. starts levelling off in the 90s and even declining. Upsetting/troubling!
I like and agree with most of the article but the 25% cite of women in America having been slapped by an intimate partner is not credible and completely threw me off. Clicking on the link doesn’t give me anything specific on this. I think there are enough real troubling cites that it’s a mistake to use ones that are questionable or wrong and undermines the strong points. (And makes it seem like it’s impossible to greatly reduce the prevalence of DV, but prevalence of DV today varies greatly by culture - and I know that’s really what you’re saying as well.) I have never been subject to sexual violence or intimate partner mistreatment of any kind and I can accept that I’m lucky but accepting that I’m a literal unicorn is a stretch and cites that suggest it really make me scratch my head. I work regularly with victims of DV so I’m well aware of how real and destructive it is but it’s not a majority of relationships or a majority of women who experience it or a majority of men in America that commit it.
Thank you. I have now inserted the table into the essay
The citation is here
https://www.cdc.gov/nisvs/documentation/NISVSReportonIPV_2022.pdf
Among the Igbo-Nigeria in precolonial times, married women formed groups that were 'reverse dominance groups.' The could judge and impose penalties against men. It was community based and the Church community replaced the group with the reactionary Christian Mothers Group, changing their character completely from a power group to a mere career leader.
If people are going to insist on a feminist based etiology of Intimate Partner Violence, then little will continue to be understood about the prevalence and causes and prevention.
E.g.. Why the Duluth model for IPV prevention is ineffective, but they continue with it anyway.
The research is there if anyone cares to look, but what the public are fed is misleading at best.
Horror stories, however disgusting they may be where X did something awful to Y are now retold as Gender-Based violence, and thus we are led back to square one in understanding.
It's precisely the expression of surprise that it continues in more egalitarian places shows how little understanding people have.
See Don Dutton, Louise Dixon, Nicola Graham-Kevan, Deborah Capaldi, Murray Strauss, etc, etc.
Why does crime persist everywhere? Even the safest, most accountable, or least corrupt countries?