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 would consider myself a feminist, but probably a moderate one, compared to some of the ladies who post on there.

For me, the views are very extreme at times and of you don't agree with their view point, things can turn very nasty, very quickly.

For the same reason, I don't read the views on websites such as Britain First, the EDL or UAF. Extreme views are a real turn off for me (left and right).

"men (NAM)" is a good example of how it should work.

this has been discussed before though and "Would you subject a civil rights campaigner to the same rigorous linguistic standard?" (and other points) was where we ended up.

But if you are putting a point across shouldn't it be as clear as possible making it less possible to twist and attribute wrong where there is none intended. (having fallen to exactly that in the last week)

Ummm if I may say Buffy, I'm not entirely following BBJ's line. I'd still name it 'male violence' (and as we know what we measure is merely a tip of a v large iceberg).

I'm indicating that extrapolating from stats re 'how violent men are overall' is dicey, at best.

Trillion dollar question. I'm going to stab at socialisation, that word 'patriarchy', v poor role-modelling, low sense of ambition to problem solve without violence, a heavy incidence of alcohol in the modern society ( two thirds of murders in the UK are committed in drink). I also depends on the nature of the violence - DV, public disorder etc. In the research I'm aware of the conclusion to papers is usually " can't be definitive, too many variables" or some sort. Inter-sex/gender violence tho' is pretty clear. Anyone who doubts that should follow me around at work for a few days....

The systems have designed violence to be linked with power, and through that it filters down to masculinity, whiteness, wealthy, and so on. Violence keeps groups on top, and when used by any other group it's a violation of the system's allowance of who can use power/violence and who cannot. The system gives permission and pushes the acts of violence, large and small, to keep the status quo.

In the socialization, think of who and what stories get represented at different ages in the media, who gets represented in education - history, literature, current events, and so on, who really gets protected by law, what science studies get funded and how it is reported, and so on. Look at how the media particularly likes to show it's creating 'equality' for women by creating violent roles for white women, they say 'this is equal representation' it shows what type of representation they think equals power (The recent movie Lucy was a very clear and disturbing representation of this). Violence and division is what the system was built on and what is currently used to keep it running.

I agree entirely Spork

Any attempt to look at the 'problem of male violence' has to start by recognising that oftentimes violence is not seen as a problem. Violence is glorified in pop culture, we venerate war heroes and great battles, the most famous leaders in a country's history are often the war leaders.

Power and money are the most sought after qualities in society at large and they often derive from violence at some point in the supply chain, and no one cares.

Our children play with toy guns, our teenagers play video games where they shoot people, and this is seen as normal.

Our societies are, at root, pretty violent. Is this because men crafted and maintain societies, and men are more prone to violence? Or is it because human civilisation requires violence to sustain itself, and so those with the most power in society (i.e. men) inhabit that role more?

btw I realise a lot of the male violence we're talking about is committed by men who are not personally powerful. But once violence becomes a somewhat acceptable element of male identity, it can be used by men everywhere.

I don't find FWR intimidating, but it can be aggressive, dismissive and patronizing, and I find the fixation on Trangendered people and cross dressers bizarre.

Some of the regulars seem to see themselves as the gatekeepers of feminism, denouncing women as misogynistic or telling them that
they can't be feminists because of x, y or z.

I dislike the word menz as much as I dislike the word laydeez on male dominated sites.

I am fortunate to have RL relationships with feminist activists and academics.

So sometimes I read but rarely do I post in FWR. I'm glad it exists though.

The systems have designed violence to be linked with power, and through that it filters down to masculinity, whiteness, wealthy, and so on. Violence keeps groups on top, and when used by any other group it's a violation of the system's allowance of who can use power/violence and who cannot. The system gives permission and pushes the acts of violence, large and small, to keep the status quo

In the context of any established democracy that statement is utter tosh.

Hate to post and run, but one thing re the male violence thing that is hardly ever researched is the degree that men actually hate themselves. Not researched as it would be too challenging to, amongst other reasons, but there's lots of supporting evidences to suggest it. Self-esteem and competency are very closely inter-twinned, and when things don't develop for you in a way you would wish, a scapegoat is sourced, be it other men, or often, women/children.

How is that statement 'tosh', Phaedra? Genuine question

Democracies give permission to some people to use power/violence to maintain the status quo. To their military, for instance

Dearie me. Here was me thinking we actually voted for our government; and they can be changed by voting.

And as for systems of power and wealth being maintained by violent means the distribution of wealth in the UK may be inequitable (some of it is even in female hands) but are you seriously maintaining that it was achieved and maintained by violence?

It's the sort of statements made in the last few posts which put me off identifying as a feminist.

'telling them that
they can't be feminists because of x, y or z'

Where have you seen that? Because I think we're reading a different FWR topic if you've seen people saying that.

Facts are true Democracy (and I use the term loosely) is only for the few and violence under the guise of aid is abundant...

turnip

There have been quite a few people that post that other posters can't be feminists, it doesn't happen as often now because (IMHO) a lot of posters avoid the FWR board.

All civilised law fundamentally rests on the gap in power between the armed and disarmed.

How can anyone seriously maintain that systems of power and wealth in the UK were NOT achieved through violence? The British Empire, the slave trade, the civil wars and invasions that established royal houses.... Britain engaged in a huge amount of violence for hundreds of years, and its continuing status as a wealthy world power is a direct legacy of that.

Democracy is nice in theory but the reality is that the privileged elite hold the most power in society and that is difficult to shift. See here

"Three in four senior judges, 59 per cent of the Cabinet, 57 per cent of permanent secretaries, 50 per cent of diplomats, 47 per cent of newspaper columnists, 33 per cent of the Shadow Cabinet and 24 per cent of MPs went to Oxford or Cambridge University.

In 2012, only 25 of the 600-plus recruits to the civil service “fast stream” were from working class backgrounds."

There is more in the report.

This status quo is maintained through at least the threat of violence, because the idea of even a peaceful change in power is just a non-starter. We have seen peaceful antiwar demonstrators kettled in London, there is massive surveillance of activists and ordinary people. Only the state has the legitimacy to use violence in society, and they use that to maintain the status quo.

And sorry, I don't mean to pick on Britain, because all the major states and world powers today were built on foundations of violence and war.

In fact the very definition of a modern state (a la Max Weber) is that it enjoys a monopoly on violence within clearly defined borders. i.e. violence is built into the very idea of what a modern state is.

All civilised law fundamentally rests on the gap in power between the armed and disarmed

If you mean that literally that is nonsense in the context of Western Europe. If you mean it metaphorically to mean wealth and influence ok .