Sexual Apatheid?

Listened to a Radio Scotland phone-in on domestic violence this morning. Unfortunately I only caught the tail end.

I was astonished however to hear a commentator (Morag, sorry I didn't get her full name) say that she felt that she did not like men and that all of my gender did not really act in a decent manner (I apologise for paraphrasing slightly, but I cannot recall the exact words).

I immediately bridled at this. I don't think I am a sexist. I abhor domestic abuse and do think it a serious issue. I think I treat people in a decent manner. Why should I be labelled in this way?

Let's get a few things straight. Most perpetrators of domestic violence ARE men and most victims are women. There are exceptions but given this it is only right to concentrate on the gender politics relevant to the majority case, whilst ensuring that we do not ignore victims who happen to be male.

I can also understand that women who work in this area may develop a cynical view of my gender, to put it simply the "all men are bastards" slant on life.

There are dangers in this approach.

It is important not to alienate all decent PEOPLE. this may reduce support for the cause. As well as this, the proposition is so absurd to most folk that it makes it easier to dismiss the whole issue, which would be a most unfortunate unintended consequence.

Ultimately the view could lead to sexual apartheid. This parallels oddly the view of the most sexist man I have ever known who proposed that men and women should lead entirely separate lives and only meet for recreational and procreative intercourse. There is a parallel here where the views of Afrikaner nationalists and the Nation of Islam end up at the same place (albeit for different reasons); that the races should be separate.

What an awful world this would be. We must accept that there are decent men; indeed I would argue the majority are. You should harness the support of the decent majority rather than alienate them through extreme rhetoric.