March Against Male Violence in Grand Rapids
October 14, 2011
Last night 22 people were not deterred by the rain and came out to be part of a march against male violence.
The event was co-organized by the Grand Rapids chapter of NOW (National Organization of Women) and the Bloom Collective.
Marchers gathered at Rosa Parks Circle with signs and whistles to draw attention to the violence perpetrated by men against women, children and other men.
Speakers included representatives from NOW, the LGBT Resource Center, the Bloom Collective and the YWCA. All of the speakers invited everyone, but particularly men to get involved and see sexual assault, rape, violence against the LGBT community and domestic violence as primarily a men’s issue.
Here is video footage of each of the four speakers:
[vimeo 30552358]
5 Comments
leave one →
Grand Rapids Institute for Information Democracy 
Thank you for calling attention to this issue as a a men’s issue. Just knowing that people are actively talking about it in such a way is empowering.
Thanks for the positive words Dawn. We need more people to be involved, particularly men and all of the sponsoring groups are doing what they can to do violence prevention, particularly male perpetrated violence.
I find the term “heterosexist” troubling.
Surely the term “sexist” is adequate, since its definition relates to attitudes and behaviors that promote stereotyping and can lead to violence.
I can see an argument that “heterosexism” is more targeted, describing that behavior on the part of straight people against those with other sexual preferences. But it also seems to suggest, or could be taken to mean, at least in my opinion, that only heterosexuals exhibit sexist behavior, which is not true.
Kate, I can see your point, but the notion of heterosexism is quite common in the area of Queer Theory. The best way I can describe it is within an analysis of racism. There are those, like bell hooks, Tim Wise and many more, who find racism an inadequate terms, since it says that everyone can be equally racist. The problem with the term racism is that it does not provide any historical context about which group of people have been dominated others along racial lines, which is White people. Thus, hooks, Wise and others use the term White Supremacy instead of racism, because it properly frames the form of dominance. I believe the same is true with the term heterosexism, since heterosexuals have been the dominant group and commits the overwhelming amount of sexist behavior and are the group that has the societal privilege.
What you’re saying makes sense, Jeff–I even said in my original post I could see the need for a more targeted term.
I was just reacting on an emotional level to the way the term strikes me when I hear it used. That was my original feeling, the first time I heard it, and ever since then I still retain a sense of that reaction even though I now understand its meaning.
I don’t have a solution to offer or an alternate suggestion; it might be helpful when speaking to a mixed audience (one not necessarily conversant in current theory) to define the term rather than just flinging it out there.