Barnes: Suffering in a silent vacuum
Domestic Violence has always existed and it is never going to
go extinct. Even if a partner were to defend themselves or terminate the
relationship after the first instance of abuse, it would still be a form of
domestic violence. To be able to imagine a world, relationship and even a
lifestyle that is free of domestic violence is a practice of ignorance. I can
relate to the notion that same sex lesbian relationships tend to foster loving
families, at least in our minds. However, it is just as naïve to pretend that
lesbians tend to be egalitarian, non-violent feminists who prescribe to
groupthink so strongly that they would do whatever it takes to support their
community’s precious feminine ideal of love and affection. On the other hand it
should not come as a shock, after all women are almost always the victims of
domestic violence. Not always but as we can see even in lesbian couples it
makes sense that the women that are being victimized would act exactly the way
their heterosexual counterparts do. Why would it be any different? It is
convenient to point to the shock and disbelief of violence in these
relationships to lend support to the inaction of silence. To me it is merely a
convenient explanation. Domestic abusers know exactly what they are doing, they
don’t just abuse, they plan and entrap, this is no different no matter what
your sexual orientation may be. To me these are standard cases of domestic
violence, no different, no more special and not surprising at all.
Q: Why would feminism support non-violent relationships? Many
women completely disagree with feminists and furthermore there are radical
feminists who do more damage than good.
Stotzer: Seeking solace in We-Ho
Hate crimes are an awful and pathetic demonstration of
bigotry. They have plagued society for centuries, and are likely to never seize
to exist, even when we are all mocha colored with brown hair in the year 3000.
There will always be someone ignorant and feeble enough to want to hurt someone
they do not understand and cannot accept. Thinking that a gay community would
strengthen support of outsiders and increase security for those within the
community makes sense on the surface. The members of that community hope that
by banding together and also showing the other communities that they are
pleasant, upstanding citizens that they will create a safe haven for their
niche. The articles explains however, that it is not so much the community that
draws the violence, although those people seeking to hurt members of that
community know exactly where to go, poverty, industrialization and overall
density are better indicators of safety or the inverse. I agree that if the
area in general is poor, where people are struggling, uneducated and likely
furious and depressed causing them to act out against community members who
they do not understand. It also follows that a low amount of special
community’s members would be likelier targets in a poverty stricken city. Now
if the socio-economic makeup of the area were constant, maybe then a larger concentration
would be beneficial to those members, but once again only if they can be in
groups and look after each other at all times.
Q: What factors do you think contribute to a safer
environment for special communities such as LGBTQ?
No comments:
Post a Comment