To be annoyed after visiting the Feminism section?

[Laquitar]

Sorry, i know its Christmas but i got annoyed.

I'm probably not the right person to be discussing this because although I do post on the feminist section quite a bit, discussions on violence are ones I tend not to contribute to a great deal.

But I think in both the nature of the impact they have, and the social influences that cause them, things that happen to men and women have to be looked at differently.

I suppose it depends on the impact to whom. If a member of my family was murdered, the group the person belongs to wouldn't cause me more distress. But if the media then characterised the victim in a certain way or there were issues with the manner in which the police investigated it because they were female or from an ethnic minority, that would cause me further distress.

No worries millY It's nice to talk about it, considering I'm not brave enough to pot in feminism!
I guess what I struggle with is the focus on the right of (and wrongs done to) women, when identities are such complex layerings of gender, ethnicity, soci-economic status, region, age, dis/ability etc. Ddiscrimination is wrong. VIolence s wrong. It is no more or less wrong when directed at one person rather than another, IMO, but sometimes it feels like that is being implied? (not by you, I mean, but by threads I have seen on the board). But I am open to correction!

I think that generally, people who are concerned about one area of discrimination tend to have an involvement in other areas of discrimination and human rights. There are obviously lots of ways in which people face multiple forms of discrimination, and people will consider how that happens and how it can be changed.

I don't think it is necessary for all women who recognise institutional sexism to consider themselves feminist activists. For some women it is too close to home and they might feel they are more capable of dealing with some other social issue. But some women do feel that being a feminist helps them personally and they can be most competent at that kind of activism; it doesn't mean they are going to ignore all other issues. While different groups do have some overlapping issues and similarities which they can learn from when looking at each other, there are also elements to their situation which are always going to be unique, and need looking at from their own perspective.

But then, Abirdinthehand, this is a board to discuss feminist issues, to discuss wrongs done to women. There are other boards discussing race and disability and so on. I don't think anyone's saying it's worse when a woman is killed, but that it happens, and that it happens specifically because she was a woman.

Yes, that's fair enough. And obviously, from what I can see,mfeminism is a broad church, with a wide scope. I feel uncomfortable posting there because I feel it genderiszes (not a word?!) people too much, at the expense of other equally important identities, and sometimes even at expense of their humanity? Eg... Dh would love to stay at home with the children as much as I do, and both do paid work half time. He can't because his gender means it would be far harder for him to persuade his employer, and because he earns more than I do - so my part time wage would not cover the pay he would give up. He is trapped in a work-full-time male stereotype. It makes him sad to say goodbye to the children every day and he would change it like a shot.

Society sis structured in such a way that most of us - male, disabled, old, gay, black, whoever - are constrained by the discourse around us. It sucks and is worth fighting against. But not because women / whoever are the victims - because all of us are?

Having caught up on this thread again, I'm grateful to those recent posters talking about violence and murder. It's a topic on which I dare not contribute over in Feminism. But am going to put my penn'orth in here, see how it goes (tomorrow, as I need to sleep.)

Abirdinthehand wrote: uncomfortable because in fighting against being the victims of generalizations and sterotypes, I sometimes feel we risk constructing new ones. - This is how I often feel when feminist conversations turn to male violence. I'm really appreciating the posts above, trying to address the complexities of looking at violence through several different 'lenses'.

In so far as feminist perspectives on violence are concerned, I rather feel that male violence is more pronounced, more nuanced and more acceptable (in some ways) than female violence because most of the power belongs to men. When men fight, they're fighting for big stakes. That's an unwieldy generalisation but it'll have to do for this time of night. Women fight from and in a place of weakness.

I question standard feminist assumptions that men's greater physical power lies at the root of systematic male superiority. I am not sure. But I do know that, given sufficient power, women are just as vicious and warlike as men. Every significant queen and empress has demonstrated it. I don't believe for one second that women are the gentler sex; to me this a wholly cultural construct.

The only conclusion I've drawn, after years of discussing violence with feminists, isn't even a political one: it's that all girls should learn to fight. I did. It's empowering in the true sense and, actually, is a fundamental skill for both boys and girls. The kids around here all do kick-boxing, I'm happy to notice.

Anyway. Having said little in too many words I'll bugger off and come back tomorrow. Thanks again!

i think the key issue about that male enacted violence (be it on women, men or whole nations) is that feminism wants to challenge it and ask questions about it - why do men behave this way? do they need to behave this way? is there something about the version of 'masculinity' we are promoting that leads to this kind of behaviour? etc.

but of course when it comes to looking at victims of violence there is more interest in women (not only because the majority of domestic violence - which tends to be what is focussed on, along with sexual violence happens to women) but because this is a woman's movement.

but of course if this woman's movement could challenge versions of masculinity, find out what/why/how this appalling culture of violence goes on and can be challenged then your teenage son would benefit just as much as your teenage daughter.

what i find concerning about the so called men's rights groups is that they focus their attention on attacking feminists rather than setting up shelters for male victims of domestic violence etc.

i think it always gets overlooked that when feminism is critiquing a political order (patriarchy) and the version of masculinity it promotes the benefits of changing that would be for EVERYONE. male, female, upper/lower/middle class, black, white etc etc.

Can you elaborate further on what you mean by people in HK and Singapore having boundaries and personal responsibility, and this is why their rate of violence is so low?

Also, how did you find the statistical comparison of rate of violent crime? I will try some search terms but if you have a link it would be great

It is also possible that in HK and Singapore that the violence takes place behind closed doors? And women don't feel able to be open about it?

Just a thought.

besides which you can pay a small amount to do anything you like to a woman in many of these cultures.

"It is also possible that in HK and Singapore that the violence takes place behind closed doors? And women don't feel able to be open about it"

...and, or that women in these countries are obedient to men.

Although it's got to be said that the British can be very aggressive.

These things are not black and white though - and I suppose I can relate to the OP in thinking that that grey areas get overlooked in the Feminist section.

"Seeker - yes there is domestic violence in Singapore and HK and this makes up most of the crime rate. However (and I am not suggesting that you are) don't for a minute think that women from these 2 countries are oppressed subserviant nodders as I can tell you first hand that they are not."

Well, I wasn't. And you were suggesting that I was, or you wouldn't have made the statement!

In cultures where there is "no safety net" ( and what a good idea that is!) women generally have fewer choices, and often find themselves having to put up with unacceptable behaviour for economic or cultural reasons. Not at all sure that introducing the cane for spitting out chewing gum would have impact on a hiddenncrime like domestic violence.

not that if women had more power they'd be more violent (not imo anyway). but that if we adopted and promoted better versions of masculinity there would be less male violence.

The Patriarchy, and its definitions of femininity and masculinity, is bad for (many) men too. From what I understand, that's not a statement that most feminists disagree with.

Do you not think, though, redwine, that these kind of images and messages which men are being bombarded with over the last decade, that they are rather similar to the kinds of messages being bombarded at women for the last century or more?

You say that "the UK male has pretty much been battered into submission from all angles and no longer has any self esteem" - so what do you think the effect of all this marketing has been at women?

I don't think anybody should be subjected to aggressive marketing or be told how they "should" look or act etc, FWIW, but I just thought it was strange that you are so concerned about the effects on men but not at all concerned about the effects this kind of marketing has on women, when it it more pervasive and has been going on for a longer time.

"yellowraincoat - you don't think men are under pressure either? You are wrong. Over the past decade men too are pretty much bombarded with media commenting on their weight, shape, looks, the six pack etc. In addition they are bombarded with material about how to keep your woman happy in bed, the house, finances etc. If you think men are let off the hook about looks and sexuality you are sadly mistaken. If you have boys yourself you will see how they are treated at playgroup, school, with other children. They are pretty much marginalized in any situation because they are "aggressive". I think it's sad and I for one do not let anyone marginalize my boys nor let anyone try to mold them into someone who sits down and is quiet. "

I do have a boy. I have seen no signs of him being marginalised in any situation. I see no reason why he should not be moulded into someone who sits down and is quiet when the occasion demands. And I want school to ensure tht he does not "express his masculinity" in such a way that he is a pain in the neck to others. Anyone who has had anything to dowith schools knows how easily boy's activities- football for example- take over the playground only leaving the corners for girls and non- stereotyped boys.

The problem is that boys and men have had control over more than half the physical and metaphorical space in the world for so long that being asked to share it equally makes them feel marginalised.

Link to an article kinda on topic/off topic, but hopefully will add to where thread is currently at.

www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/nov/18/international-mens-day-gender-identity

As I've said previously, I think feminism walks hand in hand with other issues. Certainly, this kind of belittling of men's issues as discussed in this article is the ugly face of feminism that I strongly dislike. I think there is a very blinkered approach to certain problems that people face and that some brands of feminism actively contribute to them. I see a lot of this in this thread by some posters.

I remember reading a thread I a while back that very much annoyed me on AIBU. It was about men being allowed to stay overnight in maternity units. It was a recommendation by a group of organisations including a men's right group and a midwife union. It was based on a trial that had proved to be hugely successful, though at first had been massively opposed by the midwives involved. Women felt more supported and happier at the end of it to such a degree it had completely changed the attitude of the midwives. Good thing for feminism right??

Apparently not! The reaction it got on MN totally baffled me. Woman saying it infringed on their dignity, that certain ethnic minorities wouldn't be able to cope (how do they cope during normal visiting hours???), that it wasn't a man's place and how it would cause violence towards staff and patients and put them at risk of sexual assault, how we shouldn't even bother to try because the NHS can't cope!!! Why try and change and improve things? It was just about every excuse and obsticle you can possibly think of to keep men out of 'a women's circle of influence'.

I do question the kind of message this sends to men - that family and child isn't there business and they had no place from day one. To highlight potentially damaging effects of this, the people advocating the study also pointed to a interesting little study done in American that found that teenage fathers who were involved as much as possible in the first few hours and days of a babies life were far more likely to active parents rather than abandon the mothers and babies... food for thought huh?

It was a single thread, but its a theme that occurs too frequently.

Mumsnet, also offers a massively distorted version of the truth. I tread with caution here, as it will end up with someone saying in a whining voice "Oh so you are saying she deserved it" type response. Threads are often very biased as they only have the point of view of the woman involved and not the mans. Threads like "he never does any cooking round the house" don't tell the opposite side of the tale of how when the man tries he gets henpecked and nagged for not doing it in the 'correct' fashion, makes too much mess, doesn't cook the right food or to her standards etc etc, so he doesn't bother cos its not worth the grief. Just yesterday I saw comments about how men who cook on Christmas Day see it as the annual BBQ and thats wrong as they don't cook all year round. All very well, but it smacks of the man not being able to do right for wrong too. Isn't it nice, man likes cooking on christmas day and instead of whinging, perhaps encouraging to have 'more frequent annual bbqs' and saying how much you love it, might be the way to go rather than being a whinging madam and complaining when he does decide to make an effort!

We ALL contribute to the stereotypes and the way others react and behave to others. I do not put the blame purely at the feet of men. Its a cope out. Its all very well complaining about this issue or that issue but until women are prepared to get over ridiculous ideas that I have seen expressed all to frequently on MN, that men are a) the enemy, b) all sexual predators, c) violent abusers d) totally unreasonable and insensitive. If we continue to do so, then actually I think we are just going to stay in the same place with women being 'unappreciated', or 'disadvantaged' as they had to be the sole caregivers and in some cases providers.

I think theres a hell of a lot of people on here who need their heads banging on the table to actually get this across. And its far from being an "all jack mentality" as some people have also tried to make out elsewhere. Its an observation that whilst some people do have a genuine cause to complain there are also an awful lot who use it as an excuse to moan and an easy thing to blame rather than take action to actually change things or reflect on how they also contribute to status quos and injustices. I'm sorry, but certainly on Mumsnet there are too many woman who use the martyr card quite deliberately when actually they are in a much better position than they are prepared to either admit or appreciate and that takes away from the women who are in a situation who really do have problems.

tl;dr