“I pledge not to commit violence” implies that it’s something that I’m deliberately holding myself back from doing.

It really doesn’t, you know. I’m quite happy to make that pledge, in exactly the same way I’m willing to pledge to breathe oxygen.

Well, engaging men in feminist issues is something which I personally see as really important, and which I want to give serious consideration to.

So it’s a debate worth having, especially here, as this is a site which aims to be inclusive to male feminists wanting to make a difference.

At the same time, if you don’t mean to come across as completely negative about the campaign, and in fact have a relatively nuanced position on it, you surely must be able to see that in the initial stages of this discussion it was difficult to interpret a response that opened with “urgh” as anything other than total opposition.

Those comments from Twitter are interesting, and I think they make a valid point about getting both genders to (in the words of GoodMenProject) “join the conversation”.

I don’t agree that it should become a badge focussed on men as constant actioners, as the ones delivering counterpunches to the Abusive Punches as it were. This to me is an acceptance of the status of women as Attacked, and a call to arms for men to Defend the Women. I think the point of the campaign is to move people on from seeing women as To Be Defended, and to look at how they can encourage attitudes away from active violence in the first place. Whether or not it works, I do not agree that making the campaign continue a very ingrained tradition of men-as-active, and women as the “done-to” group, is effective, healthy or useful. That, after all, is the stance that the campaign believes causes VAW in the first place. Extrapolating and glorifying defensive violence *on behalf* of women who should be able to walk the streets safely in the first place … only goes so far as far as I am concerned.

Some might argue that the campaign *does* in fact further an image of women as “done-to”; ribbon-wearing kind of reminds me of chivalric imagery so I do concede that it is difficult to create a “ribbon” campaign that does not further this image whilst also advocating a pacifist, non violent, passive, almost, stance for men. But I think that that is what they are trying to do. Perhaps it is unfortunate that it isn’t hitting all the right notes with many men who could be sympathetic.

I believe that the campaign is not intended to imply that men are all slavering beasts of innate violence. I think the idea is that men are acknowledging precisely that they aren’t the things that you say the campaign implies they are – and never have been – and banding together to show this via the ribbon.

I see your read on it, but for many men it can be read just as easily as a fuck-you to alpha male culture. Funnily enough, on the subject of offense, I’m more in the camp offended by the VAW trends themselves than by attempts to raise awareness of them.

I don’t mean to come across all negative on White Ribbon, I really like most of what they do :) It’s just the first line of their most prominent advert that stopped me dead.

Comments from twitter:
“I don’t like the implied violence either, but *men* are talking about abuse. It’s a miracle.”

and a talking about a quote from the site:

” ‘Our next Minister for Women and Equalities should be a man…Sad that having a man in the role would make other men sit up and notice, but at this point in time, I’m willing to use all my tools in my box.’ So yeah. Go white ribbon.”

Do check the site out, they’re good people. I just wanted to flash up that this man’s reaction to one of their campaigns was to be quickly turned off…

Is your issue mainly just the pledge bit, then, and the wording of the pledge? The packaging rather than the message itself?

Because I don’t think we’re totally at loggerheads on that – I think “men” are as diverse and multifaceted a group as “women” are. I know that when I first was offered a SVAW ribbon at university, I was a little unsure about wearing it. I soon changed my mind. I read a lot of Amnesty International’s writing on the subject, and a range of other things around street harrassment and so on, and concluded that the ramifications of VAW as an issue go further than “men who hit women” and into a wider set of trends around the world, including and influencing pop culture and other common arenas of experience (relatedly, this definition of ‘rape culture’, even if you don’t like the term itself, is an interesting read http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2009/10/rape-culture-101.html ).

I think that raising awareness of VAW as an issue, as a dynamic and a social trend that continues to be prevalent, is important. And it’s difficult to define a trend like that without treating “men” and “women” as broad groups.

And *acting* to stop all those types of violence against women is excellent, but the first pledge is that “I *personally* pledge” not to do it myself. And sorry, but I’m f***ing offended. I don’t pledge that, because it was never a possibility and I don’t need to show myself as in the ribbon-wearing crowd to the outside world to prove that I’m not a danger to women.

I’m pushing the point, I know, and the campaign itself does a lot of good – they have some great ideas on all kinds of issues, and I’m glad they exist. They also tackle violence against children from men AND women, for example. But while domestic violence is horribly frequent and widespread in the UK, I think their wording implies a default where all men are dangerous to women.

(I’m not judging from a position of uninvolvement here, as some of BadRep know I’ve been the guy who gets between a crying woman on the underground and the boyfriend shouting in her face and waving his fists as though it’s not a packed train with people watching. More than once. That kind of “will not condone/remain silent” is very much needed.)

Also, absolutely – what one defines as “part of the problem” can be FAR more wide-ranging than “punching women you know”.

Violence against women as a recurring phenomenon isn’t just “domestic violence”. It’s a whole social dynamic which extends, for example, to correctional rape and rape as a military strategy in the third world. The white ribbon campaign, as far as I am concerned, is as much about raising awareness of these issues as it is “personal” ones. It is as much about making the political personal as the vice-versa.

Certainly it has been used in conjunction with feminism more generally, too, at least according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_ribbon.

Now, Steve:

If it became a badge where women knew that could call on the man if they see him on the tube, or in the street, when they are being threatened then THAT would be achieving something

I see your point here, but I don’t think I’m alone in stating that I would rather not be threatened in the first place, and it would greatly reassure me on the bus at night to see more people wearing this ribbon.

I learn boxing because I enjoy it, but when I walk alone at night and I have to walk up the alleyway that leads to my door past a bunch of dudes in a car who heckle me, I silently tense up ready to have to try to defend myself. It is intimidating. Whether the PR on the site could do with being more unified or otherwise, because I do think that some men have come away from it feeling patronised, and that may well be a valid concern, I think that the ribbon is meant to be about solidarity, not pillorying men.

I am not looking for white knights, actually, or men in the street wearing WILL SAVE WOMEN tabards.

I am looking for equality and I am looking for as many people as possible to encourage a status quo where I feel like I am closer to getting it.

So even if I don’t completely run with the whole atmosphere of White Ribbon, I’m going to run with it in general – or at least, I don’t want to tear it down or go “urgh” at its efforts. Its heart is in the right place, along with the Men Can Stop Rape campaign, which I DO support (and is there a difference, really, other than the pledge feature, which you don’t HAVE to take them up on?)

I think that one good reason to take pledges is to be able to turn round and say “look. Look at all these thousands of men who AREN’T violent; these stereotypes are shit.” Perhaps if it were framed that way, more men would like the campaign?

Basically I feel the reaction that many men have had to it, but I also think that it’s an easy target for bile that would be better reserved for more deserving targets.

I know that I wore one at university as part of a more general “Stop Violence Against Women” awareness-raising campaign.

A google of “stop violence against women white ribbon” has a student link (Cambridge University Women’s Campaign) in the first page of results.

They say (my emphasis): The White Ribbon symbolises the wearer’s rejection of VAW and commitment to the campaign, as well as personal rejection of domestic, and other forms of, violence.

So for me, yeah, women can wear the ribbon. If the aim is to bring men and women together in consensus, then sure thing.

“anyone who’d wear one was never part of the problem to begin with”

I don’t know, I’ve always liked White Ribbon because there’s room for people who might have been violent and have reformed. Not everyone who may have hurt a woman is an unredeemable ‘psycho’, there are drug problems, alcohol problems, hell, I know a few guys who still feel guilty for being too rough on weaker or younger sisters when they were younger. You can get in a fight with a girlfriend or boyfriend and the temptation to push them, shove them might be there, I know I’ve felt it before.

Their site is weird. I’m not sure everyone maintaining it is keeping to the same message (some parts say ‘end violence against women’ some say ‘end men’s violence against women’). Am wondering if women can take the pledge?

Argh.

“I pledge not to commit violence” implies that it’s something that I’m deliberately holding myself back from doing. It says that men are a danger to women by default but can as individuals decide not to punch a woman in the face today. Wearing the ribbon suggests this one is different from the majority, and the rest must therefore be still potentially violent. Or it suggests the men use wearing it as a visual reminder to not be violent every day. It’s totally, totally counter-productive: anyone who’d wear one was never part of the problem to begin with, and it sets up a scenario where “men” are the ones who can’t/won’t control themselves.

Men who beat women are violent, psycho assholes. This comes from them being *psycho assholes*, not ‘male’.

Not condoning and not remaining silent is, however, superb. Wearing the ribbon to show that you will take action, instead of that you have promised not to punch and kick people, is worthwhile. If it became a badge where women knew that could call on the man if they see him on the tube, or in the street, when they are being threatened then THAT would be achieving something: pledging to step in when confronted with violence or abuse in public (not in a vigilante way, but so that anyone contemplating behaving like that knows they will be called on it.)

I just don’t see what good guys wearing a ribbon achieves on its own, and I seriously dislike the campaign’s language and implied assumptions for the vast majority of men.

(On the other hand this is a reminder for me to contact Refuge and see how I can volunteer or help, which has been on my list for a while. I am well aware of the scale of the problem of domestic abuse, I just don’t think the White Ribbon thing is the right approach).