Feminism, whats the goal?

Yes, I think it should be funded by state or UN, women are taxpayers too and with their unpaid work contributed greatly to modern society.

Also, I don't know where you see any tyranny, everything would be voluntary, small experiment for a start and then see how would develop.

It is important that we start to think out of the box, neoliberal patrirachy is not the only nor the best way society can be organized.

I think women should start demanding our own state, or women only autonomous regions within current states, because of ongoing femicide that is our moral right.

Could I ask where the funds (for land purchases and infrastructure) would come from? Also, would this receive ongoing support from the country in which it is established or would the goal be true autonomy? For the latter, I'm not suggesting that power stations and communications hubs need to be built but, for example, would an internal economy support the purchase of energy? Would women be required to leave to engage in heterosexual relationships or could the 'vouch' for select men?

I realise this is a bundle of questions. Primarily, I'm interested in how what I see as tyranny (taxation without representation at best, apartheid at worst) could be morally justified in its execution. If I misunderstood and you meant a privately purchased area of land, I realise those questions don't apply.

I think women should start demanding our own state, or women only autonomous regions within current states, because of ongoing femicide that is our moral right.

Men are not inherently violent or sexists, living in patriarchy makes them such, in women led society it would be easier to raise boys into decent human beings.

I thought that book was brilliant. I could feel the Power in my hands! Amazing. Two very harrowing scenes in it which have stayed with me. I thought it was quite convincing in showing that women aren't inherently any nicer or kinder than men - if somehow our relative physical power relation was reversed, no guarantees that we would have a better world. It also does a good job of showing how power is used against us. It's a really great book.

In reality, of course there is a lot more complexity. But in general I think we can't just assume that we could reverse things to put women in charge and that's the answer, or that men should somehow be stripped of all their power. We have to figure out how to work together. For the most part, I think we are heading in the right direction, but there are definitely still some big areas where we are not getting it right, and we are often being put on the back foot and having to re-fight for what we thought we'd won. It's hard. But we are getting there. I'm optimistic. Might as well be!

I am totally for lesbian separatism - I support it. It obviously isn't going to be how the majority of women want to live, but I'd like to think that as a society we can accomodate different ways of life, communities and families.

Physical strength has always been a pretty basic way to assert that will to power, it's the first one children use against each other.

I think the relation of the sexes includes that for sure, both directly and in the sense that woman are affected by pregnancy and concern for children. But it's also a lot more complex, because they are interdependent and even with no will to power involved, reproductive role will impact the shape of a society. There are a lot of different kinds of things going on in any society when looking at male and female roles, and it can be difficult even to tease them apart.

Has anyone read the feminist sci-fi thriller “The Power”. I read it in a friends book clubs recently and This discussion is interesting. The premise is all women start growing these especial electric organs that instantly makes them able to easily Overpower almost any man. Now that they have the power, gendered violence and oppression flip. It’s a very contrived but the point she’s arguing is that it’s the Native ability to wield power which Causes the issue. I think she’s trying to say in the end that it doesn’t have to be this way - but that power plus entitlement to Use that power is at the root of male violence (not “Maleness” per se). Women commit domestic violence against children at high rates as well which does support this model soemwhat

Quite interesting because aggression is one of the reasons why humans have even made its this far, along with intelligence, opposable thumbs and general adaptability. I would love to see early humans 'strongly rebuke' a sabertooth cat during dinner time. Anything that has existed had to fight for its right to live on this earth. Those that do not are left in the pages on history. Nature does not care and can be cruel.

I suspect SomeDyke might not be keen on men.

Always interesting to see those trying to wriggle out of naming the issue.

After a several-pages long discussion, with a fair bit of nuance, about the advantages and disadvantages of categorising or grouping phenomena in a particular way, that's your response?

If we really thought the problem was unsolvable, then we should perhaps be having a conversation about whether or not the Y chromosome was conducive to the long-term survival of the species,

Are you on glue? (a) of course men are necessary for the long term survival of our species, (b) one group tending to be pushed around by another group doesn't mean the dominant group should be murdered to bring equality. Women's lib doesn't need any guillotines.

Anyway, inequalities are not necessarily a problem to be solved. For example, most men are bigger and stronger than most women. In the UK we choose to organise our society in an attempt to limit the negative effects of this while keeping the positives. We are being fairly successful compared to many other places.

What do you think is 'going on' then? Do you think feminists are just too weak and pathetic to call for the eradication of males? Shall we put all the boys in a camp for re-education?

Always interesting to see those trying to wriggle out of naming the issue

As it is interesting to see people trying to force others into precise viewpoints and perspectives that they no longer, or never did share.
You do realise that yours is just one of many perspectives on human relationships and how they have evolved.

If we really thought the problem was unsolvable, then we should perhaps be having a conversation about whether or not the Y chromosome was conducive to the long-term survival of the species

I'm not sure there's ever a good time to discuss the benefits of what is pretty much genocide. But tbh we could lose 90% of the world's population and still survive so it's unlikely to be an issue. Climate issues are I think a much bigger threat to mankind's continued existence. The population can't just keep growing - at some point it will reach critical mass.

The irony is that we'd probably not have lasted this long without male aggression to fight off predators etc, but we're now in a world where it's possibly more a burden than a benefit. But for sure it's unlikely IMO that we'll ever escape from conflict. It would require a religious/ideological truce that I just can't see happening. And where there is poverty and instability there will always be dictators and Kim Jongs.

Hobbies not hobbits FFS!

I obviously have different life experience being a man, but I observe that feminism often looks at couples individually rather than as a team. So, for instance, when we say that the man gets to enjoy the benefits of the high powered career, it isn't often taken into consideration that they probably have a joint bank account and she may well be getting the same financial benefits as the man but getting to spend more time with the kids and pursuing hobbits etc.

Of course, the flipside is that should they divorce she doesn't have the same career prospects she may had before kids. I defo notice a real variation in opinions on here though. Many women with high earning husbands seem to count themselves lucky they can experience a high quality of life whilst still having lots of time to themselves (going by what I've read on here).

Always interesting to see those trying to wriggle out of naming the issue. In any other area, even a relatively small quantitative difference between groups is usually seem as something meaningful and needed explanation. The sheer size of the difference between females vs males committing violent acts of various sorts, the robustness of this difference across various societies and times.........Plus the fact that when you point this out someone wants you to use different groups, or pretend it is complicated, or just ignore it in some way, tells you a lot about what is going on.

If we really thought the problem was unsolvable, then we should perhaps be having a conversation about whether or not the Y chromosome was conducive to the long-term survival of the species, and how we could possibly get rid of it........Except (most) feminists don't. Which in some sense shows how civilised we are. That we were patient enough to wait for the marital rape exemption to be removed in 1991. ........................

fMaslow's Hierarchy of Needs (for posters unfamiliar with the pyramid, here's a wee linky to a diagram www.simplypsychology.org/maslow.html). In our society, to attain particularly the top two tiers (of Esteem and Self-Actualisation) requires (often) money, and (especially) time

Yes, when basic survival needs are threatened, or not met, or there is a feeling of having to struggle and fight to survive, then violence is more likely. People brought up in poverty and according to the 'rough and ready' rules of the jungle/the street are more likely to use violence and overt aggression as a tool to assert themselves. Males in particular.

Which is a particularly defeatist attitude that suggests we should just hold our hands up and not bother to even attempt to change things because ‘boys will be boys’

That's not what I'm saying. And I'm not defeatist. I'm realistic. Of course violence should be actively discouraged and penalised. But hinging a whole movement on the abolition of something that is fairly intrinsic to particular aspects of human nature seems fairly defeatist in itself to me. A sort of religious quest.

I have grown sons and they have never once assaulted or been violent to anyone ( except maybe towards each other when small). On their behalf I reject suggestions that 'boys will be boys'. Generally, although not exclusively by any means, it tends to be those least educated, more tribalistic, that most easily resort to violence as a first base solution.

I remember in the 1980's the chants of "Take the toys from the boys" ( referring to weapons of mass destruction in that instance - but also to weapons of warfare more generally). At the time it certainly felt like it was speaking to the idealism of living in a peaceful and just society.

I now think there can be a liberation in accepting the limits of human society; in recognising that the dark side of human nature will always be present. That doesn't mean we have to condone it, though.

Very many interesting points made by many posters. I'd like to bring in the concept of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs (for posters unfamiliar with the pyramid, here's a wee linky to a diagram: www.simplypsychology.org/maslow.html). In our society, to attain particularly the top two tiers (of Esteem and Self-Actualisation) requires (often) money, and (especially) time.

There are questions to be asked about what sorts of accomplishments or characteristics will give a person "Esteem" in any given society, and if those sorts of value judgments might, perhaps, be reevaluated. For example, it might be argued (I do not share this point of view) that the question of trans-women in female sport is at best irrelevant, because the whole idea of attaching so much acclaim and monetary potential to who can run the fastest over a short distance is inherently ridiculous, somehow represents "maleness", and should probably be discarded. A problem that quite a few posters have brought up is that as soon as an accomplishment is seen as "female", it goes down in general Esteem. This is a problem!

The other biggy for me is time. To do anything that is challenging well, you need time, to learn, to develop, and to practise. If you want a society where women are able to reach the top in whatever field, you need to have structures that allow them to invest the time. This is (for women and men) more easily done before one has caring or financial responsibilities. Afterwards, it becomes inherently somewhat selfish, because one has to prioritise the art or the science (or the political engagement, etc.) over other commitments at least a good chunk of the time. And historically, this has been much more tolerated of men than of women, and supporting structures (a wife to bear the brunt, a college to live in, etc.) were seen as natural and necessary. So I think that to have equality of opportunity, one would need a society that gives equal opportunity to access support structures, and that is flexible enough in the nature of the support structures to account for differing biological needs.

And just to contradict myself somewhat, I also think that we attach a bit too much "Esteem" to being outstanding in any particular aspect. It should be as acceptable for a male academic (for example) to write a few less papers but to take care of his ageing parents, as for a female academic to spend a bit more time in the lab and expect her children's father to sort out bedtimes.

Like most problems, the right balance in any context is not simple to find, and ideological slogans are a very blunt instrument. In general, I think we've come a long way. I think we're now at a point where further progress requires deep interrogation not just of societies' value systems, but also of practical implementation. It's bound to be a bumpy ride!

I think it would be impossible to remove violence from society completely, and even assuming that men and women are equally violent, the people who haven’t gone through Male puberty are always going to be aware that their ability to assert their will through violence is limited.

There is a connection to a stronger tendency for men to be violent of course. That seems to be biological, and it may simply be a fact that men are always more likely to go off in this way, and certainly that they typically do more damage when it happens. Even if we somehow minimised it to the greatest degree possible, that won't change.

I think it's also an interesting question whether that propensity doesn't exist because it has certain uses. It always seems like a two-edged sword to me. I think about vandals attacking our house once for example, my husbands reaction was to stop them, mine to hide - both have their uses. It was also something you could see clearly when I was in the military - aggression was useful and it was easier to bring out in men. But that was also a danger within the organisation, and in society, that had to be mitigated later on, and that doesn't always work.

It seems to me that human society is always going to have that underlying animal element, we are sexually reproductive with long pregnancies and childhoods, and males tend to be the ones left with the more protective and violent roles.

the problem is really about being concrete - as "male violence" it is an abstraction, a statistical analysis, that doesn't tell us much at all about the concrete situations in which it's instantiated

Ah, okay, I can see that makes sense. So perhaps it is better to talk about 'violence committed by men towards their partners,' 'violence committed by men towards other men in X context' and so on. You are right that they need to be studied as separate phenomena and different solutions and strategies used to combat each. Unless we genuinely are having a discussion (like now) about the general proclivity of males to commit violence, then it is better to be more specific. Thanks - I think that's a really good insight and does answer my question.

You are treating 'male violence' as a 'disembodied concept' but not explaining how it fits that criteria, and I don't see how it does fit that criteria. It is a very 'embodied' reality, in fact. We could call it something else, such as 'violence committed by males' if the phrase 'male violence' seems too political. But essentially it is a real thing that presents a problem in society. Can it be completely eradicated? Unlikely. But we can certainly improve the regulatory and legislative frameworks to make society safer, and we can certainly disincentivise violence to a greater extent. That is already the trajectory in the UK, for example.

Am I misunderstanding you? It seems like you are saying that 'male violence' is not an actual problem but rather a misguided and ideological worldview of feminists. I don't think you have made a convincing case for that at all.

When I look at other types of systemic oppression you can usually point to a culture or a time in history where/when it doesn't exist

Dunno. I think disabled people have always had a pretty raw deal too.