Feminism, whats the goal?

[quote WinterAndRoughWeather]@queenofknives

I do quite like the term 'male violence against women' (as opposed to simply 'male violence') because I think it is more descriptive, it loses that vagueness that might help suggest it's inherent to maleness, and it sums up the issue neatly.

But male violence against men is also a problem for society, not just that which is directed against women. It’s really not equivalent in any way to female aggression or anger. Female violence just isn’t a societal problem.[/quote]
Sure, but for feminists, male violence against women is the issue. We tend to let men deal with their violence against each other.

If everyone just continues to argue based on their own observations and opinions, there’s little point in the debate.

As I said, there is actual science concerning male violence.

So, in theory, once 'male violence' is eradicated we can all be truly equal, since it is 'male violence' that is preventing equality.

You could get rid of male violence tomorrow (and I agree that a quick glance at prisons statistics makes than unlikely), however, you would still be left with the unavoidable fact that mammalian reproduction impacts males and females differently.

Saying the latter isn't going to happen isn't defeatist, it's pragmatic and realistic. Policy and practice that recognises innate behaviours will always be a factor tends to be more effective as well, because it can actually address them and their causes.

It's like people who think the solution to workplace sexual harrasment is just to disallow any kind of workplace romance, social touching, etc. yeah, you can do that, but you aren't going to stop people from being sexually and romantically interested in each other, especially if they spend a lot of time at work. And stopping everyone from dating etc takes a huge amount of regulatory effort and is often still not effective - they just do it on the sly. As a solution it simply doesn't account for basic human drives or that fact that for many, sex and relationships are at least as important as employment. You are trying to force people to make choices that are directly against their nature.

Of course once you have a policy like that, and people are flouting it, it becomes very difficult to control a lot of sexual harassment.

I'm of the mind that negative human behaviours, including those that are particular to males, will always be with us in some form

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’,

Violence begets violence. Those who are abused as children are more likely to go on to abuse as adults.

There are many men who are not violent. It is entirely possible to examine the causes of their non-violence and see if there are lessons that can be learned to prevent problems before they begin elsewhere.

We know that channelling anger into more productive activities such as sport can be effective, for example.

But what makes it ideological? You haven't really explained that and that's the bit I don't understand. Can you give an example or explain it in a different way

Ideologies tend towards the adoption of totems - which encapsulate the essential ideas or frameworks of the belief system: the working assumptions of that particular analysis of society and human relationships.

For feminism it is 'patriarchal oppression' , 'male violence' and so on.....they are posited as almost as discrete 'things' which exist, ( totems), but which I'd say act as disembodied concepts.

That is not to say that violence isn't a feature throughout human societies through time. It clearly is. And there is much evidence that certain types of aggressive or violent behaviour are more typically, or even almost exclusively displayed by the males of the species.

The crux, for me, is whether you think that aggression and violence can ever be totally eradicated. Thus paving the way for a society in which females do not ever have to suffer from violence or aggression from males again. So, in theory, once 'male violence' is eradicated we can all be truly equal, since it is 'male violence' that is preventing equality.

I'm of the mind that negative human behaviours, including those that are particular to males, will always be with us in some form.......because human beings are creatures of instinct and primitive drive, as well as having the capacity for transcendence, sublimation, transmutation of primitive drives. In fact that is the goal of most religions. to transmute and offer up our base natures to some form of godhead.

For me feminism is one of those things like safeguarding, healthcare or even fitness training.

Left unchecked nature fucks us over in many areas of life. If we want to live long and live well, we have to get that lump checked out, we have to take some exercise every day, we have to be wary of CFs.

I agree, and I think the main thing that prevents women from being fucked over is legislation - my life is different to my great grandmother's life because I have access to contraception, and equalities legislation.

However, the job is never 'done' because the world is always changing. We have seen that the removal of child care facilities in response to Covid has impacted women more than men, mainly because child bearing tends to push women into lower paid and less secure employment so they are more likely to be the partner who gives up paid work.

Thinking about it, while it's true that males are clearly more prone to violence than women, I think the term "male violence" as used in feminism is probably of very limited use.

THe thing is, that while being male is a commonality, there are actually a lot of different causes of it, situations it arises from, and so on.

You can see this if you think about female violence, wich is less common but is certainly something that happens. And being female connects these incidents, and we could make some statistical analysis of what female violence looks like, on a population basis.

But there isn't necessarily a lot that actually connects an abusive mother, a girl in a gang swarming old people in the night, a nurse who secretly euthanises patients, or a woman who joins the infantry.

While violence is a more common response in men, it also comes from very different origins depending on the situation, and has totally different social implications. You can't expect to use the same political or policy solutions with them all. In some cases (man in the military, man depends sheep from wild dogs, etc, you would not want to, either.)

So 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.

@queenofknives

I do quite like the term 'male violence against women' (as opposed to simply 'male violence') because I think it is more descriptive, it loses that vagueness that might help suggest it's inherent to maleness, and it sums up the issue neatly.

But male violence against men is also a problem for society, not just that which is directed against women. It’s really not equivalent in any way to female aggression or anger. Female violence just isn’t a societal problem.

Thank you for taking the time to discuss it, queenofknives and apologies on my part too for the derail.

I had a conversation with the same male friend who wanted male violence renamed ‘violent people’ the other day about the word ‘patriarchy’ which he was bristling at every time it came up. We figured out that he was seeing it as a shorthand name for ‘male privilege’ and that it was saying ‘you are having an easy ride, look at you and your easy male life in the patriarchy’ and he said that it was being used by his female friends in a casual way that reinforced this. E.g. ‘why can men go topless in this weather and women can’t? Patriarchy innit’. (He’s in his twenties).

When I explained that I was using it to refer to a structure in society that has men in charge of the wealth and power and that it was an old and well understood term that was being entangled with all this modern talk of identity politics and privilege, he actually agreed with my use.

Feminism isn’t identity politics but it’s being muddled up with it.

No, i definitely take your point that it could express a meaning or worldview beyond its purely descriptive function. But it is also factual - it is specifically male violence that is a problem. But then using this term does quite often end up with having to justify it - not all men etc. I guess that this does reflect the metonymic aspect of the term.

I would prefer to be factual and descriptive. I guess it's impossible to ever use language in a completely non-ideological way.

I do quite like the term 'male violence against women' (as opposed to simply 'male violence') because I think it is more descriptive, it loses that vagueness that might help suggest it's inherent to maleness, and it sums up the issue neatly.

We have probably gone off on a wild tangent into language and rhetoric, though! I'm interested in these things but probably a bit of a derail from the original question, sorry!

I wanted to add that I've really found this discussion (both the questions and points made) and its overall evolution really interesting and thank you to everyone who's taking part.

Hmm. I guess I don't see it being applied that way - the situations where I see the term used are really quite specific and descriptive.

In a somewhat parallel way (possibly more of a tangent) I think the views on the use of the term share commonalities with the use of the term itself. People naturally use their language in a way that seems 'right' to them so criticism of that language (being used a different way) can feel like a personal attack.

People need to read Demonic Males by Richard Wrangham.

the difference could be the application of the term rather than inherent to the term?

Okay, I could see that. The implication that violence is inherent to maleness? Hmm. I guess I don't see it being applied that way - the situations where I see the term used are really quite specific and descriptive.

I also agree with you that the rhetorical power of the term is quite positive. It does make people recoil somewhat, in a way provides a kind of friction. Whereas 'violence against women' tends to feel a lot 'smoother' and people take less notice.

On a related note, 'domestic violence' is a very ideological term that does a lot of work to minimise and trivialise violence. Petition to rename it to 'male terrorism'?

Yes male violence is a real, concrete thing and no, I don’t believe it’s either an unstoppable force or something we just have to put up with and protect ourselves from.

Society can and should change to the point where male violence is hugely diminished.

But what makes it ideological?

I don't wish to speak on behalf of Thelnebriati (or anyone else) but could I propose that the difference could be the application of the term rather than inherent to the term? I think the distinction is in culpability. As another example, someone could quite neutrally talk about 'Islamic Terrorism' in terms of how to combat it, while another person might use it in accusatory terms to claim that terrorism is inherent in Islam and/or that its adherents are collectively responsible for acts of terror committed in its name.

I would also like to suggest that men who recoil at the term is, in a way, somewhat positive. I think it shows that those who recoil do disapprove of other men being violent.

Male violence is a red herring. It is what it is. You can no more stop some males from being violent than stop a lion eating prey. More important is that is well recognised, well publicised and appropriately legislated and punished. And females have to accept it is a reality of life, just like living around any other kind of potential predator, we need to use our judgement, educate our young and protect the weak.

Equal representation in politics and power - it should be mandatory to have 50% of senior management, board representation and political postions held by females. Everything else will fall in place if this were law. But theyll never take their grubby mitts off that prize.

In France, employers are legally obliged to hold your job open for you for three years after birth (unpaid). That would also make a huge difference to women I think, allowing you step back in at the same place you stepped off.

Not to mention that many of us have been victims of male violence. I am not talking about words or looks or newspaper articles or a feeling, but actual punches and kicks: violence. I don't understand how talking about/campaigning against that is the same thing as creating a nebulous ideological opponent in the form of 'white culture'. I would agree if people were saying 'male culture' or 'maleness' was the problem. But 'male violence' refers to an actual concrete thing. Doesn't it?

'Male violence' is no more or less nebulous than 'White privilege' or 'White feminism'
It is much less nebulous than either of those other terms.
We have crimes that define violence in law, and we can show that 98% of those crimes are committed by males. Therefore male violence is a descriptive summary.

"Privilege" is not an equivalent term to "violence".
One is positive, one is negative.
One is a quality someone possesses through no choice of their own, the other is an action someone can choose to inflict on others.

It's a false equivalence and I don't know why it benefits you to deny male violence is a problem.

Males, in feminism, are framed as 'the problem' per se.

Er, you admit that male violence is a problem. But you don’t want to admit that it’s a problem because it contains the word ‘male’ and naming sexes is an issue?

Read Invisible Women and then come back to me and talk about the importance of accurately recording issues by sex so that problems can be identified and tackled....

I’m a teacher. We often look at how different subgroups behave/achieve so that interventions can be targeted. It’s a better use of resources than trying to pretend that everyone is the same.

But 'white culture' IS nebulous and arguably not even a thing. 'Male violence' is statistically and legally and and scientifically and historically extremely well documented. We understand it in many different aspects and can examine it through a number of different lenses. What makes it the same as 'white culture'?

But what makes it ideological? You haven't really explained that and that's the bit I don't understand. Can you give an example or explain it in a different way?