Can I talk about men ?

museummum those are all perfectly fine ways to describe the prevalence of violence amongst men. if you then want to extend from those statistics and assertions to their impact on wider society you need terms that will help you describe which groups of people are affected in which ways

I am not too concerned about causing offence, as I've outlined above I think the anger that arises in such discussions could be a positive thing

See, I would say that violence is a key part of masculine privilege because the prevalence of male violence leads to deference which I do not experience as a woman and which puts me at a disadvantage relative to men as a class

Grr was supposed to be "statistically" not "drastically".

Objecting to the use of "as a class" (is this termed "class analysis?) doesn't mean silencing talk of gender and violence. It's just far less offensive to say things like "x% of women suffer violence at the hands of a man" or "drastically far more violent crimes are perpetrated by men" or whatever than "men are violent" or even "women are victims of violence".

Beachcomber said 'If men as a class do not exist (or are beyond analysis), then logically so are women. Game over feminism.^

Why game over? Why not say, 'Maybe this analysis is too blunt a tool.' Or 'this is a starting point, not an end point.'

Within class analysis, does it drill down further that the gender divide? Is there any analysis of, say, the classes of violent men vs non-violent men? (I'd prefer violent vs non-violent people, but let's stay with the OP's theme of talking about men). What is known about the differences between the class of men who absorb the doctrine of hyper-masculinity, and those who reject it?

outself has worded that better - i do agree that a man's violence has a wider impact beyond the pain of the individual in that it reinforces and perpetuates the current patriarchal structure in a way that a woman's violence does not

I don't fear any man. That's media bull shit dressed up in your own insecurities.

I don't fear any woman either, and professionally speaking I've had more reason to be concerned there as immediate/direct impact, where man tends to be impact in a bigger picture kind of way.

I don't think "women are violent" has an equivalence with "men are violent" because women are not responsible for the vast majority of violence; men are. Statistically speaking, violence is a male issue. Sure NAM, but insisting that I cannot speak about the gendered quality of violence means I cannot speak about one of its important aspects and I can not speak about the effects of that violence on my day to day life. For example, I am more likely to be deferential to a man because of the fact of male violence.

I would say "women are statistically more likely to be in poverty".
I baulk at "women as a class are obsessed with appearance".
Can you not see the difference. It's an emotional reaction. The first way of speaking doesn't imply a prejudice about the financial situation of any individual woman. The second makes it sound like it's ok to make that assumption about an individual woman.
I accept that's probably not the intention but it's how it sounds to me (not a social scientist) and I know it's how it sounds to others.
Therefore it's not a term I use it really want to engage with.

lougle that says that women can be violent too, and that that woman or those women who hurt you were no better or worse than if a man had done it, and the violence you suffered and your experience was no better or worse than if a man had done it, and that it's horrible and abusive and shit and shouldn't happen

but you've said yourself that statistically men are more violent than women. that means that within that there will be people who experience violence from women, and there will be people who experience violence exclusively from women. that won't be the experience of the majority of those on the receiving end of violence, but it is not any less violent for that. from a feminist analysis POV however, given the huge disparity in terms of which sex is the majority perpetrator of violence, this would fall within "women can behave in a shit way too, and that shouldn't happen", and "people (espeically those whoare vulnerable such as children) can be on the receiving end of violence from women too, and that shouldn't happen". what it doesn't fall within is "there is a group of people that is oppressed due to the violence of women as a class", because the analysis shows that "there is a group of people that is oppressed due to the violence of men as a class". it does not seek to minimise your experience - oppressed groups can behave in violent ways to other people too - it seeks to analyse and describe the problems at societal level

The trouble is, that inherent to feminist discourse is the notion that oppression of women is both overt and covert. Explicit and implicit. Seen and unseen.

So, if they say 'women are obsessed with their image because the menz demand it' and a woman says "hold on, I'm a woman and I'm a feminist and I don't wear makeup for them, I wear it for me" the reply would come: "You think you wear it for you, but actually your desire to wear makeup comes from a patriarchal societal upbringing in which you have been bombarded with the message that you aren't a true woman unless you're wearing makeup...."

Well actually, how can you refute that. Anything you say which refutes it goes down as uneducated, ill informed, deluded.

I've not once been hurt by a male. I have been hurt by a female on three occasions (all as a child). What does that say for the argument? Feminists would say 'nothing, it's irrelevant because statistically men are more violent than women.'

Good post Beach.

as-a-class definitions are used all the time, if people feel that there is a characteristic that is sufficiently representative to warrant discussion and analysis of why other groups don't demonstrate that characteristic to the same degree. as a tool it can be criticised, it's not used by all feminists and it's not used only by feminists and it is not used by feminists all of the time - there are situations where it is not useful

"women as a class are obsessed by their appearance. See the problem?"

But women as a class ARE more obsessed with their appearance. The questions feminism asks are: Why is that? What forces in society cause girls to value their appearance more than boys do? And ultimately what can we do to counteract that and free women from the confidence-draining obsession with looks?

That is why feminism is good for men. That is why feminists hate men the least of all. Because they ask exactly the same questions of the fact that "men as a class are more violent than women" and come up with answers that will ultimately liberate men (as a class of course) from the violence they perpetuate on each other.

Do people who reject the notion of men as a class also reject the notion of women as a class?

Would you reject statements such as "women as a class are more likely to be poor" or "women as a class are more likely to be subject to domestic violence" or "women as a class are overrepresented in prostitution" or "women as a class are underrepresented in government/positions of economical and political power" ?

So are we all individuals, with no status awarded by society according to sex, and the above are nothing to do with class, but simply coincidence or down to women being a bit crap?

If men as a class do not exist (or are beyond analysis), then logically so are women. Game over feminism.

"As I said before, talking about MRAs in the context of women's place in society has comparisons with talking about Britain First in the context of discussing immigration in the UK."

I have to disagree. Whilst MRAs are, admittedly, an activist minority they espouse views that can be seen to a lesser extent in the male population at large.

To give an example: a very lovely guy I know once gave me the "I don't mind women having equality but then they want men to open doors for them". This is such a trite attitude, straight out of the books of MRAs yet it was spoken by a man who I considered to be a good'un.

I still DO consider him to be a good one. I consider my dad to be a good one even though he thinks men have evolved to be better at Science. That's the point. It's not like MRAs are an isolated fringe group spouting views that the majority of men unequivocally disagree with. They are the extreme vocalisation of what many ordinary men and women actually think. They are the views of the many people who have reacted negatively to the successes of feminism, the backlashers. The "I'm all for women's equality but it's gone too far" people. Those people aren't a fringe.

Now it most definitely shouldn't be taken from that that I hate men. I don't. Men, like women, are merely products of the society that they are brought up in. And IMO it is the society and its norms that feminists try to tackle. Once that changes men will change too.

Men as individuals who benefit from and perpetuate patriarchy without being aware that they are doing so are not bad. The same goes for women. I consider my mum to be a pioneering feminist (within the context of my conservative family) but even she comes out with some corkers of which MRAs would be proud. MRAs may exist on a fringe in terms of their activism but their thoughts are plucked from the everyday fabric of our society's thinking. That is entirely the point.

In your analogy you spoke of Britain First. They may be extremists but they reflect strands of thinking on immigration that are found to lesser extents in society at large (how else do explain the rise in popularity of UKIP?) Same with MRAs. And if feminists over-refer to them it is probably to stop ourselves from focussing on the fact that their views are so widespread.

Simply put patriarchy is a problem, and although all patriarchs are men, not all men are patriarchs.

Damsili I like your post of 19.07, it's something I've been thinking for a long time. It's late now but I'll try and remember to post my own response to the OP in the morning - just wanted to say that.

Men as a class are violent. However, the majority if that class is not. So how do the percentages work? Women as a class are violent too, no, if there only needs to be violence within the class?

Or maybe it's just comparative? In which case, women as a class are obsessed by their appearance. See the problem?

The men-as-a-class thing works for me in cases where my speaking of men as a class will not contribute to their marginalization or keep them from accessing goods and services the need. So saying men as a class are violent towards other men does not lead to them being unable to access positions of.power etc. Whereas saying men as a class enjoy violence might mean that they were consequently less able to access counselling after violent encounters they were traumatised by. I'd apply the same standard to any as-a-class statement. That is my personal standard.

However there is the wider context in which my speech about men as a class would not really be equivalent to a man speaking about women as a class. Because any statement I might make about men, which any individual man might feel misrepresented by, is not further amplified by the fact that I have the full weight of patriarchy pulling on my side. A man feeling misrepresented by my statements has greater access to the institutions of discourse that could redress my misrepresentation, which I am in any case relatively less.able to enforce, than a man making the same statements about women. I have less access to redress, so people seeking to represent me in their class analysis must consider this. Of course, such considerations are complicated by issues such as class, ethnicity, etc. but I think these are more or less the standard ideas around class analysis

I.recognise the objections people have to the use of class analysis but find it incredibly useful. If individual men are enraged by statements such as "men as a class are violent" good, I say. Bring it on, because that to me, is the rage I feel as a feminist when I consider male violence. The smart trick, of course, is to redirect the rage of that man away from the speaker of that statement, and to where it rightfully belongs - the men who perpetuate violence. I, ahem, haven't always managed that second stage. But I think that that flash of indignation and rage is not to be avoided, I think it has the potential to radicalise men to the cause of fighting the patriarchy. This is also a.personal standard, my personal idea - it's not (afik) a common feminist strategy.

did you miss cailin's much praised post on one of the other threads, which summed up the way most regulars on FWR feel about the role and status of SAHMs?

nojacketrequired, your post did come across as ridicule i'm afraid

think of the self-selection bias in both this section and in threads like this, and also of the fact that those women, feminists included, who are not happy with their relationships are far less likely to post openly about it. this is such a limited sample and it's easy to see how it would tend towards women who are in positive relationships and are in a position to be able to post about that. i hope you are right in your assertion that most men are the same, but IME there are many many men who while they pay lip service to the idea of equality, are reluctant to make any changes that cause them discomfort, and in reality many are actually abusive in varying degrees

please don't talk about this as a "bubble". it is such a classic criticism of this board that the women who post here venture nowhere else on MN, nor anywhere on the rest of the internet and apparently don't engage with anyone in RL either

Go and have yourself a little read around and see the contempt with which many men treat stay at home partners...

Actually, this was a fairly common complaint on the thread about a thread about a thread. Except a lot of SAHMs felt that they suffered this prejudice from posters on FWR. It seems that there is little love for women who bring up families from anyone