Can I talk about men ?

Grimble, this isn't my area either. But I wonder if rather than xx per cent of men have to be violent in order for men as a class to be reasonably labelled as violent, feminism comes at it from a different angle. So, if 90 per cent of violent crime is committed by men, then of the two classes, it is overwhelmingly men who are the violent class.

Then again, if only 10 per cent of men are violent, it does seem, as you say, rather blunt. If 90 per cent of men are violent, it seems pretty accurate.

All of the above figures are made up, and are for example only.

grimble i don't have an adequate answer to your question and i'd be interested to see what others say. but on your point about "practical get on and do it" feminism presumably at some point you must have identified a problem in order to then put into action your practical stuff? e.g. if you raise money for DV shelters for women you will have identified that there is a problem here that is disproportionately affecting women and that men are disproportionately the perpetrators, not necessarily in specific numbers but in general? or if you work to avoid your daughter being constrained by gender stereotypes you will have identified that this is something that has affected women as a group and you count her among those at risk?

obviously i'm making tons of assumptions about what you mean by practical and get on with it, but i just mean that at some point you must have identified what you felt was worth putting your time and energy into, and it didn't have to include feminist literature or statistics or whatever, perhaps just your own lived experience and that of other women that you could see? because that sounds a lot to me like looking at men and women as a class.

sorry if i've misunderstood anything of your post grimble, or of the as-a-class bit which i hope others will correct me on if i'm wrong

beachcomber - As one of those here generally uncomfortable with the 'as a class' terminology i have encountered, I have no issue at all with your example "Men as a class are socialized to objectify women".
I have however read on these boards many times people saying 'men as a class are violent' and other things, then getting annoyed if anybody dares to clarify 'not all men'.
I didn't study social scientists, I do not know about 'class analysis' as a methodology, this is my only encounter with the 'as a class' terminology and I will be relieved if you are right about how it is meant to be expressed and that the instances I have read on here are just lazy/sloppy or shorthand use of jargon not intended for people like me unfamiliar with the jargon.

Can any poster who has been involved in class analysis tell me, in order to qualify as a class e.g. men as a class are violent, women as a class are more concerned with appearance (whatever example you wish) is there a definitive proportion of men or of women who have to exhibit these characteristics to before they can be defined as a class?

I'm not being very clear. Try again…

I could understand if, say, 80% of women were more concerned with appearance that could qualify as a class. But if it were, say, 50% i.e. half weren't concerned with their appearance, would that still qualify as a class?

Would 30% qualify as a class. Or 10%?

Is it as vague as "we observe a statistical tendency for women to be more concerned with their appearance or men to be more violent"?
And at what point would that tendency reach statistical significance? Or does it ever?

If not, that would seem to be an incredibly blunt weapon for analysis.

This is a genuine question from a feminist - a practical get on do it feminist rather than an academic, gender studying feminist. Sorry if it is a dense question

Nojacketrequired, gosh, I have no idea what makes some men actively violent and others not or less so. I bet it would be interesting to research.

I disagree that all men are subject to the same influences however. There is a general background of living in male dominated/hypermasculine society that affects us all but we do all have individual experiences too and I guess they all join up to make us who we are.

Why do some men think it is OK to catcall in the street and some men don't?

Which is an interesting question but it doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of the world's catcallers are men and women are the victims of their harassment.

HaroldsBishop that isn't how class analysis is used.

I've never heard a feminist say 'men as a class are rapists'. The only example that you give which might be used/useful in a feminist discussion is "Men as a class objectify women" - although it would be better expressed as "Men as a class are socialized to objectify women".

Class analysis isn't about applying offensive stereotypes to people - it is about observing and analyzing trends within populations and within groups, groups that are defined by society.

they become simply individuals who are better at running the world/economy/holding power/being in charge/doing well paid jobs than those other individuals

Which is how they see themselves for the most part. It is very jarring for their egos to address the fact that being male, upper class and white might have something to do with it.

Thanks for the response, Beachcomer.

Further to my earlier post, what do we know about the class of men who are violent, versus those who are not? Has there been a lot of research? Given that all are subjected to the same influences, what differentiates them?

Nojacketrequired

Game over because if you can't talk about women as a class/group you cannot talk about structural oppression against that group. Men and women cease to exist as meaningful groups within society and become simple individuals. And then women cease to be a collective, a group with a common identity and common issues or a common root to their issues. And men cease to exist as a group which is awarded higher status and privilege because they are men and they become simply individuals who are better at running the world/economy/holding power/being in charge/doing well paid jobs than those other individuals who just happen to have vaginas.

any discussion that starts by asking about feelings about 3 billion people is really a little bit silly.

No because that is a statistic not a generalisation.

This is the stuff I'm referring to:

"Men as a class are rapists."
"Women as a class are inferior drivers."
"Men as a class objectify women."
"Women as a class are poor manual labourers."

See museumum's post at 9:42, basically.

and simply adding "as a class" doesn't change that. It's basically the gender equivalent of "I'm not racist but...

No it's not. I've certainly heard people involved in race activism talk about "white people...". It's quite obvious they are talking about their experiences in a white-dominated culture, not the behaviour of every white person everywhere all the time.

Also interesting that people trying to identify and reduce oppression are "beyond contempt". Why?

People are asking for opt outs of male violence by insisting NAM

Male violence differs in scale, kkind and effect than female violence. We should be able to name that. Saying that is not the same as saying men are dominant and women are victims at all in relation to this issue

The fact of male violence is a million times more concerning to me than offending people who don't like acknowledging the relationship between men they know/ who they are and male violence.

Harold, just to be sure, if I say "men as a class commit more violent crimes than women as a class", am I beyond contempt?

Anyone who makes sweeping statements about a group of people numbering in the billions is beyond contempt - and simply adding "as a class" doesn't change that. It's basically the gender equivalent of "I'm not racist but...".

It can't hurt to pursue analysis down both lines, we may uncover different facets of causes and (hopefully) solutions.

I don't think it's inherently harmful to either sex to examine them "as a class". The factor is who is doing the analysis and why.

If someone is a mysoginist (or misandrist for that matter), the analysis is going to coloured by their starting point.

I think anyone who is merely engaging with the issues, thinking about and looking forward to solutions should be cherished and respected irrespective of wether we agree all the time. Our real opponents are the apathetic.

"Obsessed with" sounds different to because it is different - obsessed is usually used negatively!

"Women are more concerned about personal appearance than men" (where the statement is referencing both as a class) probably evokes less of an emotional response...?

But how is it different really from me hating when people say 'cyclists run red lights'? I am a cyclist, I don't run red lights, I know some do.

I guess you'd say the difference is as a non-red-light-running cyclist I don't benefit from the actions of those who do run red lights.

I just don't believe that the 'men as a class' and 'women as a class' approach is more useful in affecting change than awareness raising about the actual figures/statistics and a rallying call for all like-minded good people to all unite across genders to equalise or level those statistics.

I never said anyone should opt out. You brought it up. I said we all have to opt in, to fix problems within our society.

Well why the need to opt out then?

Men and women aren't equally violent and the effects of violence are experienced by them differently. That is not at all saying men are absolutely dominant and women are victims at all.

No person can opt out or dissociate themselves completely from issues that are pervasive in our society. Not you, not me. Unless you want to divide society into two groups, one of which is utterly helpless and the other totally dominant. We all have a responsibility.

Also, people objecting are are objecting on the basis that men they know aren't violent. But those men absolutely do benefit from male violence, which is why I don't feel that individual men should be able to opt out or disassociate themselves from the idea that men are violent

I also have a son and the idea that men are violent brings me to consider carefully the ways I might discourage him from identifying with and embracing violence as part of his identity. I'm also keen that he does notice the automatic deference he will receive for achieving manhood and help him to interpret that as a privilege.

I'd ask you to consider what your ire around this issue arises from the language I adopt about male violence and would really hope that you would see that the real anger should arise from the fact that we live in a society which wields male violence as a tool of privilege and that our boys and men are coopted into that at great cost to everyone.

outsSelf - the offence it causes is to me... for myself as a 'women but not all women' and for my son as a 'men but not all men', i mean he's only an infant, but he will be a grown man one day. And for my father and husband... who have awareness of how the system benefits them and are not sexist in their own personal sphere of influence but are not feminism activists and do not give their time or our family time to fighting the patriarchy.

I just don't like the terms, and I think it's quite possible to avoid using them without silencing feminism. And I think that they are terms that put men and also women with positive relationships with the men in their lives onto a defensive footing which I think shuts down positive constructive discussion.

But I also don't want to get into an argument, I think I have explained my point clearly. I doubt anybody will change their thinking and I don't intend to try to change anybody's mind, just to explain that it is possible to be feminist and uncomfortable with that terminology.