To be a bit dismayed if 4 million women visit this site,why are there so few posts on the feminism threads?

[Scarletohello]

Ok so I know there are lots of lurkers but if there are really millions of women who go on MN, why are so many threads on the feminism section consisting of so few women? It doesn't make sense to me as so many issues that
women post about on many different topics are actually feminist issues when it comes down to it...

I had my daughter in 1991, back before the explosion in all things being pink and frilly. So that was a feminist battle I didn't have to fight, because it wasn't an issue back then and there were a lot of clothes and accessories that were not so gender-specific.
It still feels to me as if something went horribly wrong at some point, and we slipped back decades on that issue.

Buffy
It was a while ago, and several name changes ago
I do believe they talk on FB or a different private group and then pile in together. The worst school girl bullying

Because it's no different to every other board full of conspiracy theorists in the dark corners of the internet, full of posters egging each on with increasingly paranoid ideas and woe betide anybody who steps in with a "hang on a minute".

I'm beginning to think that MNHQ should post a warning to those who enter FWR that beyond here lie dragons.

And there are dragons, but there are also academics, engineers, doctors, teachers, accountants, SAHM, lawyers, men (!), students, etc etc. Sometimes threads are a bit high brow, sometimes they're a bit nonsensical but most of the time, it's just women trying to make sense of their lives and of those around them.

I really struggled at first to get my head around the fact that there is a difference between criticism and analysis. Having something I did analysed felt very much like criticism and it took some time before I could see the benefit of understanding why I made certain choices.

In relation to tone, those who pop in only occasionally may not see how many threads get deleted. I've always preferred for the trolling threads to stay because it would let so many posters see just what some men really think of women. It's not just unpleasant, it's demonstrates a fundamental hatred of women and highlights to me why women need to have a voice.

Every dedicated board on here has the extreme threads, the daft threads, the chatty everyday ones - why do those on FWR get held to different standards. And of course there is a consensus - it starts with the premise that women are not treated equally and diverges off into many branches from there. But that's where the consensus ends. Why on earth would you complain if you don't agree with the one singular point that all feminists agree on ? Of course your views are going to be called out and your motives questioned.

From the FWR thread:
"Ah yes, I especially like it when feminists are told they aren't arguing "nicely" enough, or are "too angry". It's all ways to stop us speaking out."

I wonder if part of the problem is that FWR kind of serves two audiences.

There are people who are interested in feminist ideas, especially as they relate to issues they are especially interested in (whether work or breastfeeding or health or women overseas or whatever). They may consider themselves feminist (or not) but it's not a huge part of who they are.

Then there are people for whom feminism is a primary part of their identity, who really try to live feminism in many aspects of their lives, who maybe are involved in activism, etc. I think for this group things like feminist baby clothes or body hair or whatever take on more importance, because being on the wrong side of this screws with their identity, with who they are.

I think both groups can coexist but it will naturally create some tension, because the first group will see the second as endlessly navel-gazing, and the second will see the first as dilettantes or not doing feminism right.

I think you are probably right dreaming. I would class myself as a feminist, but the former of your two definitions.

FraidyCat going out of the front door, accosting a man and saying "you there, with the penis, you are responsible for the epidemic of violence against women and girls" isn't what I mean when I say "men" as part of a feminist analysis.

When I say "male violence" I don't mean all men are violent, I mean it is something overwhelmingly perpetrated by men. That's not to hate all of them or blame all of them for it. But if we are not allowed to notice that it seems to be one sort of person that will do these things, how can we do anything about it? If we say it's just 'violent people' who are violent, that stops us looking for explanations and solutions in areas like hypermasculinity (the way boys and men are expected and encouraged to be fairly violent and punished if they are 'sensitive').

My impression is that feminism, like most ideologies, political or religious, is not shy about inventing new language. (Doing so is a convenient way of constructing an intellectual landscape where one's views are irrefutable.) If by "men" feminists didn't actually mean "men", then I think in half-a-century of popular feminism they would have managed to come up with something else.

I can well believe that there are non-man-hating feminists who use "men" they way you do. The most racist person I ever met didn't hate or even dislike black people.

Yes dreaming I am very much in the first camp and while I would class myself as 'a feminist' in the technical sense of the word, it is not a label I ever use and it is certainly not a primary part of my identity.

The reason for this is that if I did label myself in that way, then I would be forced to see things in a particular way. I do find that sometimes, people who label themselves as 'feminists' see things in quite a black and white either/or way, where as I like to be a bit more pragmatic and analyse each case as it comes.

You see it on here where a poster has 'feminist' in their username, or prolifically posts about feminist issues. They would never be able to say 'actually thinking about it, I suppose in this case.......' And you already know what their view is going to be before they even post, even if it perhaps not all that clear cut to others.

I just like a little more room for manoevere (how the hell do you spell that word?!)

Sorry Buffy, my last post came out a bit stronger than I was aiming for.

To engage in a bit more detail:-

When I say "male violence" I don't mean all men are violent, I mean it is something overwhelmingly perpetrated by men.

Let's say all violence is perpetrated by men, and (statistic made up for the purpose of this thread) that 1 in 10 men perpetrate violence. That means talking about the problem of "people" being violent would be 95% wrong (because only 5% of them are) and talking about "men" being violent is 90% wrong. The difference in accuracy is not meaningful, while harming the debate by insulting half the population.

But if we are not allowed to notice that it seems to be one sort of person that will do these things, how can we do anything about it?

Again for the sake of argument, let's say all violence is perpetrated by men. It would then be 100% accurate (and completely inoffensive) to say violence is perpetrated by men, but at the same time be utterly wrong to say men perpetrate violence. The two statements are not equivalent. The first statement is true and the second is untrue.

So, in this statistical world, it is simply false that men are violent. It doesn't help you make the world a better place if you set out with false beliefs.

If we say it's just 'violent people' who are violent, that stops us looking for explanations and solutions in areas like hypermasculinity (the way boys and men are expected and encouraged to be fairly violent and punished if they are 'sensitive').

I don't have a separate answer to this point, I just want to bang home what I was trying to say earlier:-

1. Violent implies man = true (approximately.)
2. Man implies violent = false (and offensive.)
3. Not understanding the difference = hard-of-thinking.

My posts are still coming out stronger than I intend. I think I'll stop digging now.

Buffy

Why not 90%OCIPM? responses to NAMALT are then RTFT.

missed a "V" out but you get the point

Of Crime Is Perpetrated by Men. OCIPM
Or as it should be
Of Violent Crime Is Perpetrated by Men. OVCIPM

we use acronyms all the time. why not put a few more in there?

statistic for violent crime in the UK is sadly pretty close to 90% perpetration for men

If this means 90% of men have committed a violent crime that would make a difference, if I believed it. If 90% of violent crimes are committed by men - well that's a completely different fact, and not one I'd argue with.

Did you see my post about civil rights and white people? Would you apply the same absolute criteria to what they are allowed to say about white privilege?

Yes, I would. I suppose in both cases (racism and feminism) I doubt such discussion has much chance of achieving anything, so the fact that it makes discussion harder wouldn't bother me. (My prejudice (these aren't issues I usually think about) is that such improvements as have taken place are probably the consequence of nothing more a sense of fairness shifting cultural norms over a period of decades. Theory and debate mostly irrelevant.)

if 90% of violent crime is perpetrated by men, and we agree that this is not a good state of affairs, what's a better way to describe the problem?

You make it sound like there wouldn't be a problem if women committed 50% of violence.

Let's assume violence by men does differ not just in relative quantity but in kind from violence by women, so it is worth studying violent men separately. Maybe use the phrase "violent men" instead of "men"?

What should also be bourne in mind is that the portion of violent convictions (like much crime) is committed by repeat offenders, in a concentration. So yes it;s misleading, often, to make assumptions from bare statistics.