AIBU to wonder why any woman would identify herself as....

[seeker]

.....not a feminist?

Tell us more, unpa1d... pleease.

"Until violence towards women is taken seriously, violence towards men is going to remain the stuff of jokes I'm sad to say."

How is violence against women not taken seriously? By who? Society thinks violence against women is abhorrent, not a joke. As for the courts, it should be taken more seriously - but then should all violent attacks - but as I said, society is run by the rich and the courts care about financial crime and generally see violence (unless its very serious, murder etc) as the lower orders fighting amongst themselves, or not of great import.

And if violence against women is taken seriously, which it is, what excuse can there be that violence against men by women is seen as a joke? Why do you, as an equalist, need violence against women to be treated as seriously as you'd like before violence against men is 'a joke'? This is why feminists are not equalists - you peronally seem nice and reasonable, but you have suggested up to 50% of men are violent (then retracted it a little), then said domestic abuse of men must remain a joke until abuse of women is taken 'seriously.' Hey I'm all for stiffer sentences for wife-beaters, but that doesn't mean I think men must wait for help until women are all satisfied with the punishments for those who abuse them. That's not equality is it? Quite the opposite.

Firstly, violence against women is not taken seriously.

? Domestic violence accounts for between 16% and one quarter of all
recorded violent crime. (Home Office, 2004; Dodd et al., 2004; BCS,
1998; Dobash and Dobash, 1980)

? One incident is reported to the police every minute. (Stanko, 2000)

? 45% women and 26% men had experienced at least one incident of
inter-personal violence in their lifetimes. (Walby and Allen, 2004) ) ?
however when there were more than 4 incidents (i.e. ongoing domestic or
sexual abuse) 89% of victims were women.

? In any one year, there are 13 million separate incidents of physical
violence or threats of violence against women from partners or former
partners. (Walby and Allen, 2004)

? Women are much more likely than men to be the victim of multiple
incidents of abuse, and of sexual violence: 32% of women who had
ever experienced domestic violence did so four or five (or more) times,
compared with 11% of the (smaller number) of men who had ever
experienced domestic violence; and women constituted 89% of all those
who had experienced 4 or more incidents of domestic violence. (Walby
and Allen, 2004)

? Women are more likely than men to have experienced all types of intimate
violence (partner abuse, family abuse, sexual assault and stalking) since
the ages of 16. And nearly half the woman who had experienced intimate
violence of any kind, were likely to have been victims of more than one
kind of intimate abuse. (Coleman et al., 2007)

? 54% of UK rapes are committed by a woman?s current or former partner.
(Walby and Allen, 2004)

On average 2 women a week are killed by a male partner or former
partner: this constitutes around one-third of all female homicide victims.
(Povey, (ed.), 2004, 2005; Home Office, 1999; Department of Health,
2005.)

Compare these statistics with the fact that less than 7% of the rapes that were reported from 2007 to 2008 resulted in a conviction, compared with 34% of criminal cases in general.

Where cases make it as far as the CPS, there is a successful prosecution 71% of the time compared to the national average of all other cases of 82% (CPS figures)

Funding for domestic violence charities has been cut to such an extent that Women's Aid think nearly half of all domestic violence service will have to close.

Women's Aid believes that the slash to welfare benefits will result in a huge number of women being forced to make a choice between staying with a violent partner or being homeless (link here

Still believe violence towards women is taken seriously in this country?

Secondly, please stop attributing things to me that I have not said. I have not said that violence towards men should be treated as a joke until violence towards women is taken seriously. In fact, I have made it clear that I think violence towards men is equally unacceptable and that they should have support too. What I have said, is if violence towards women is not taken seriously, what hope is there for men, who are generally considered to be capable of standing up for themselves against women in our society. This is a way in which the patriarchy damages men as well as women.

If I may add my thoughts on the subject - I was proud to call myself a feminist when I was fresh out of college, ready to set the world to rights and angry at all the injustices women suffered daily. It was empowering, and gave me an identity - surely why anyone chooses a label. I fought the Patriarchy, I fought nice young men who thought they should pay for my dinner, heh... But I would never have dreamt I would be criticising femisnism some twenty-five years later. But here I am.

My daughters do not consider themselves feminists. they are hugely grateful to the women who helped them get the vote, and fought for their right to do as they please... but they think that's ancient history (they are in their twenties by the way). But most of all, they don't see modern feminism as having anything to do with those achievements. they see modern feminists as taking credit for it, while promoting something very different, or nothing they would want to be associated with.

I can speak for them, because now I have come to agree with them. I don't call myself a feminist, I say I was a feminist before they got nuts. This makes the point and gets a laugh, I'm not trying to insult anyone here.

I grew up in The States, and moved here 20 years ago, to be with charming English husband and escape racist USA. Things aren't so different, though I think 'radical feminsism' has more of a hold over the USA these days, and Canada moreso, would you believe. Mounties! Its so sad.

What used to drive me crazy was the sexism, the men who genuinely think women were inferior, the huge barriers that women faced, the depiction of women in the media, the fact that rape was seen as nothing to complain about. Those days are gone. My daughters can run any business they want, no one sane tells them to get back in the kitchen. None of their male friends are anything other than pro-women, and my daughters say they know more men that claim to be feminists than women these days... though they suspect it might be what they think will get them a date...

I don't live in a Utopian bubble, I've lived in three different towns and cities in this country and I am satisfied that the battles I helped fight (not that I did much than start arguments, but hey, thats' what foot-soldiers do, right?) are mostly won. There some are silly old fools that will be sexist/racist/homophobic til they die, but what can you do?

So as well as agreeing with my daughters that my generation of women changed the world, why am I down on the new generation that have taken to fighting for us in the name of feminism? These reasons.

Men are not the enemy. Not anymore, if they ever really were (they never hated women in my day, they just needed us to teach them a few things) You don't know how lucky you are to have such a women-supporting generation of men, yet still they are berated and mocked. They don't deserve it. Don't generalize about them, it's like hating Belgians for that Fritz fellow.

That pay gap statistic is bad maths. There is no glass ceiling if you're good enough. If you run your own business, and it makes money, who can stop you? We all have obstacles, men and women. If there are obstacles, think carefully about who put them there, but most importantly triumph over them rather than wallow in being a victim. Did Obama have obstacles?

As someone said earlier, the super-elite is rich white men. If you're not in the right family you're not getting in there whatever sex you are. Don't blame all men for that! They are the ones who have to go and get killed in Afghanistan for these people.

There will never be a battle of the sexes. As Kissinger said, there will always be too much fraternizing with thye enemy. So try and work together for a better world. Men don't want to keep you down - women are their wives and daughters, and generally they would die for them (not kill them as some would have you believe more likely...)

Most of all, don't get lost in hate. And I'm sorry, but much of modern feminism preaches hate rather than solutions or hope.

And if you MUST be a feminist, care about the women in the world who really need help - we're all doing pretty well here.

V

NonPrayingmantis
That is a lovely post (and I mean that sincerely, btw - it's really interesting and food for thought).

I don't get the last bit, though.
... if you MUST be a feminist, care about the the women in the world who really need help...

Of course we should - and do, I hope - care about women who really need help... but doesn't that therefore necessarily make us, um, feminists?

(I do know this thread has been pretty circular for some time now - but just had to ask.)

there's been a lovely influx of new posters in the last couple of days just joining to post anti-feminism hasn't there?

welcome, MRA trolls, sock puppets and genuine posters alike!

Feminists seem to be held to a much greater standard of accountability on these boards than any other posters. Where we have been asked for evidence, we have provided it.

I would like to see those posters who reject feminism (which they are entitled to do) provide evidence for the following please:
? That feminism means that all feminists hate men
? The statistical analysis that proves the gender pay gap is a myth
? That feminists despise stay at home mothers
? That women's career opportunities are not limited by having children
? That violence towards men is a bigger problem than violence towards women.

I'll get me coat.

"That feminists despise stay at home mothers"

I was actually under the opposite impression from a couple of threads I read. I thought feminists generally wanted SAHM to become highly regarded?

Or were these threads not representative of the majority?

No Coco you are right. That feminists allegedly despite SAHMs is a popular misconception people hang on to because they think all feminists are bra-burning alpha female types who want to take on the corporate world, reject marriage and outsource their children to nannies. It is not a true reflection of the majority of feminists.

I am asking some of the posters on here who have said they don't want to identify as feminists because of x, y, z to show me the evidence to prove that feminists actually believe in x, y, z.

'there's been a lovely influx of new posters in the last couple of days just joining to post anti-feminism hasn't there?

welcome, MRA trolls, sock puppets and genuine posters alike!'

Really Sybil? This thread isn't on the Feminism boards, and it has stayed a fairly civil debate with a number of different viewpoints, which is always interesting to see. I can understand why people get defensive and sarky when the feminist board is invaded by people bent on causing mischief for the sake of it, but this is quite a polite thread in AIBU.
maybe I need to qualify my label and say
'First wave, missed the second wave and am depressed by the third wave academic feminist.'
Or ' Not waving but drowning in feminist theory'
Or 'Pass the gin Carruthers'

"... if you MUST be a feminist, care about the the women in the world who really need help..."

I thought that was we were doing.

sunshineandbooks - "Until violence towards women is taken seriously, violence towards men is going to remain the stuff of jokes I'm sad to say."

sunshineandbooks - "Secondly, please stop attributing things to me that I have not said. I have not said that violence towards men should be treated as a joke until violence towards women is taken seriously."

sunshineandbooks, kindly stop pretending you didn't say things you did.

And as I said, ALL violence, unless murder/attempted murder tends to be taken less than seriously by the CPS/courts. Do you think those 26% of men who experienced iner-personal violence all got their attackers punished? And as for the 89% of women who were repeatedly abused, my sympathy sadly ebbs when they don't leave after the first or second incident. I don't care about their excuses, they are adults who choose to stay with a violent partner.

Men are 10 times more likely to be assaulted walking down the street. Do you think they get justice? Do you think because they were men they were 'up for a fight' anyway? The courts care about financial interests. It's a disgrace, they should do as the public wan and punish the violent more, and that includes violence against men and women of course. Women are free to go to the police with their injuries, who will probably prosecute, and they can leave their violent spouse. There's not much more the police can do. As I say, the courts have their own priorities.

I am TOTALLY against fund-cuts for domestic violence charities. Meanwhile Prince Charles gets a pay raise and the bankers still haven't given back those billions. Know your enemy - the rich, not men.

"Still believe violence towards women is taken seriously in this country?"

No less than violence against men is taken. Or children... oh wait, who abuses children more, men or women? (Clue - I never beat my kids. But which sex generally does?)

Goblinchild - er, yes! Posting mainly in feminism-related threads all over the board, relationships etc. They are concerned that the nasty feminists here (who they think are only pretending to have kids btw) will corrupt the innocent mums elsewhere on the site not realising how corrupt most MNers are already.

(they've posted elsewhere on the net about how they're going to come over to MN and stir things up.)

I said that sadly violence towards men IS treated as a joke (i.e. not taken seriously) NOT that it SHOULD be treated as a joke. I have made that clear. Trying to infer otherwise is a deliberate derailing.

OK Sybil, if that's what's happening then your comment was spot on.
They must be a bit dim if they think having their arses simultaneously chewed and flamed is entertainment though.

my sympathy sadly ebbs when they don't leave after the first or second incident. I don't care about their excuses, they are adults who choose to stay with a violent partner.

MarySue please educate yourself on domestic violence before you start posting such utter rubbish. You obviously have no understanding of what goes on within a violent relationship, the control that has gone on long before the violence starts

And as for the 89% of women who were repeatedly abused, my sympathy sadly ebbs when they don't leave after the first or second incident. I don't care about their excuses, they are adults who choose to stay with a violent partner.

I think that tells me all I need to know about your stance on this. Don't you think your disdain should be reserved for the men who abused them?

That was one of the arguments that I got into trouble with a while back on the feminist board.
I do think that if a woman stays with an abusive partner, ss are right to remove the children if they see a significant risk to them.
The woman may be offered help and support to leave from different sources, but she can choose not to, and as an adult no one can force her to leave.
I also agree that the cycle of dominance and abuse is complex, and that she may feel unable to leave for a number of reasons. But children should be a priority for protection, they are vulnerable and have little or no independence and if the parents are unable or unwilling or abusers, then removal is better than them remaining in a dangerous or lethal situation.
There were quite a few on the board that disagreed with me, and it all got a bit heated. So I backed off with my opinions unchanged, despite the stomping.

Freudian, don't assume I don't understand violent relationships. Some people are attacked by a stranger - full sympathy. Some people live with someone who attacks them for years - less sympathy. There are exceptions and mitigations, but in general, less sympathy. Make sense?

sunshineandbooks, you have ignored so many points I have made and then you bother to post wondering if I should blame abusers more that their victims. Of course. Silly question. I don't think you are interested in a real debate at this point. Prove me wrong, please.

'i don't need everyone to agree with me to feel i am welcome or am a valid member of a group.'

Neither do I, but I don't see the point in a head-to-head argument with strangers on the internet. I rarely do them in real life, so why would I choose to go around in circles on the web?
That's why I pop in and out of some of the debates, it's interesting but I'm not at home or comfortable for long.