It's really only violence if it is man vs. woman.
Where are the women's "ANTI-VIOLENCE" groups, or the left wing "anti-violence police" on this Gabriel Aubry story? When Chris Brown beats the snot outta Rihanna, it's the end of the world. When Gabriel Aubry gets his ass kicked, black eye and all (lol), nothing is said from that camp.
Does that mean that it only matters if it is man vs. woman violence?
Is that because men deserve what happens to them because it is men doing the violence?
= new reply since forum marked as read
Yeah, I hung out with a few of you in college. 
If things such as experience, type of job (men have more dangerous jobs, they make more. 2,000 die each year. When 85 women died on the job in a year and newspaper headline said something to the effect "it's a national disgrace"
are taken into account, men and women are equal.
Here's a good post:
Background: Elevator-gate: A woman got into the elevator, a guy hit on her, she said no, nothing else happened. Firestorm erupts.
Sexism, misogyny are everywhere and must be wiped out, and if you have questions or disagree in the slightest, you are a sexist, misogynist, or an enabler, or all of the latter. Oh, and victim blaming. can't forget that. It must be nice to be right all the time, no matter what.
http://freethoughtkampala.wordpress.com/2011/09/15/elevatorgate-part-2-the-failure-of-skepticism/
Where is this "culture of violence"? Is it in video games? WWE Wrestling? Hollywood? Does it have a headquarters? Meetings? A Board of Directors?
It is supposed to be taken as axiomatic that it exists, it's real, like mashed potatoes and airports are real, and that it has a direct relationship to actual acts of violence, like violent crime.
So answer me this: because I've asked it in several different fashions, and no one - no one invested in these sorts of broad cultural narratives which always seem to come with grandiose pronouncements and ill-defined prescriptions like "we (who?) have to change the culture of ..." (what? where? how?) - seems to want to answer this direct question based upon actual real world information:
Namely, why have violent crime rates- by every statistical measure - dropped over the past few decades? Why are they lower, now? (FBI, June 11, 2012: "Near-Historic Lows" Certainly, there is still violence, certainly, violence ought to be opposed and violent crime ought to be prosecuted- but the fact is, it has declined and is declining.
So, are the statistics wrong? Or is the "culture of violence" already changing?
I ask, because the folks invested in this narrative of a massively fucked up culture that is becoming more of a "sewer" by the minute, don't seem to have an explanation for why violence is decreasing if everything is getting worse and, most importantly, needs to change.
Maybe the change is already taking place. Maybe "we" are already doing what needs be done, since violence is going down.
Also, since you brought up race, would you argue that racial and socioeconomic groups with higher rates of violent crime "need to change" more?
My personal feeling is a large portion of it is just driven by an aging population. But I do think there is a trend, worldwide, towards less violence- and that is part of it. I think the world is becoming more connected, more prosperous, and more free, and these things lead to less violence.
Free exchange of information, open minds, open communication. Less violence.
I do think, in terms of incarceration rates, the big one there is the drug war- because our prisons have been filling, not with violent criminals only, but with a lot of non violent drug offenders. I believe the violence associated with the drug trade - from the 80s to today - is a function of prohibition, much as Al Capone and his ilk figured in with alcohol being prohibited.
I think we need to get the government out of the consenting adult morality business, completely and finally and across the board.
You will find no stronger advocate of reproductive freedom and choice, on this board, than myself - I think any cultural fallout from Roe v. Wade is irrelevant; the bottom line is, the government shouldn't be forcing women to remain pregnant against their will. Period.
But where I take issue, again, is with broad sociological narratives like a "culture of violence". The folks who had the Thunderdome in Mad Max; they had a culture of violence. I don't see our culture having a helluva lot to do with violent crime; I think much violent crime is driven by socioeconomic factors (which can explain some of the racial disparities without "racist theories"
and for sure maybe there's some environmental stuff, too. But I don't buy the idea of a culture (much less men, which was my objection to the original piece) deeply in need of "fixing". Cultures evolve and change organically, which we have seen in the US along lines like LGBT equality. It takes time, but as MLK noted, the arc of history is towards justice.
I think that's still true.
So you kind of got what you asked for.
It's a shame that men would think that not appearing weak is a more important thing. It kind of supports the whole "might makes right" pov that is at the root of this culture of violence. I wish I saw more men speak out about child abuse or bullying, because I think it would help shift the culture to a saner place at a faster pace. When I was in Ireland years ago, helping out with interviews of grassroots as well as peace activists, they were over 80% women. I asked them if this was an anomoly or if they same the same when they met with other groups fighting sectarian violence and they all said no, that's about the percentage. The guys are not volunteering, they take paid management positions at charities, but rarely do any freebies. Even though the vast majority of violence was man VS man, the activists were mostly women. Fighting for a better future for the men and boys they knew, and by extention, for a better society. It's sad that many men can't seem to get together and fight for their own boys sake, let alone society's.