To feel despondent about feminism

[2TheLighthouse]

I’m almost envious of those women who confidently state that they’re not feminists, because presumably they don’t see much wrong with the state of male/female equality. I, on the other hand, am furious about so many things affecting girls and women that it can get a bit overwhelming.

For example, I watched that Jimmy Savile documentary the other day. It’s absolutely clear as day to me that what happened is what always happens: powerful rich man gets what he wants. Other men shield him. All the wide-eyed disbelief after the event is just total bullshit. Why were people surprised? This is what powerful men and powerful institutions have done forever . Sometimes men are the victims, but more often than not, it’s girls and women who a) suffer and b) know with a deep certainty that they won’t be believed.

Don’t get me wrong- I know there are lots of good men. But girls and women are still at such a colossal disadvantage after centuries of oppression that I find it hard to believe that some women are ok with the way things are. The only way to combat this is to continue the feminist cause - but society has played an absolute blinder on the word ‘feminist’ so that many women believe it to be some sort of weird extremism.

It would be odd, surely, if hardly more than 100 years after getting the vote, following millennia of being officially second-class citizens, women had successfully climbed up to the same status as men in society. Of course they couldn’t undo all that bullshit in one century. Especially with all the pushback.

Off the top of my head, the things that make me furious on a regular basis, in no particular order:

• the leaking of sickening violent, misogynistic porn into mainstream society, so that classes of 15 year olds snigger at the word ‘choke’ (Yes, I’m a teacher)
• the constant unofficial policing of what women and girls can and can’t wear while men can walk around topless as soon as the sun shines because the baseline assumption is that women’s bodies are ‘sexual’ and men’s aren’t
• the way female characters always have to be attractive (real and cartoon) when their male counterparts can be as ugly as you like
• the horror show that is female healthcare, with particular reference to the ‘just get on with it’ school of thought in maternity care, when women have had major surgery etc
• the casual contempt shown by boys towards girls they find unattractive; the assumption that shared space is boys’ space to dominate, either vocally or physically, with the kicking of footballs.
• incels
• the persistence of the sex trade and the loud defence of it by otherwise sensible people
• the bending over backwards to accommodate male sexual kinks

As I said, it’s bonkers to expect millennia of sexism to be undone in a century or so. But what’s disheartening is not that there’s still a way to go, but that so many people literally cannot see that.

Gendered violence? Really?

So all the Russian soldiers raping Ukrainian women are identifying a certain way? And the raped women are identifying in a different way?

Here's a really depressing link about violence towards women and how the UK government is doing with that.
www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48095118.amp

If you don't want to click on the link, in 1 year only
1.3% of rape cases recorded by police resulted in a suspect being charged (or receiving a summons).

How the fuck has it come to that?

‘Gendered violence’ is not remotely new terminology.

I'd not heard of gendered violence so had to look it up. IMO as a man, it does seem to be a much more descriptive term and more appropriately captures all the horrific things men do to women.

ec.europa.eu/info/policies/justice-and-fundamental-rights/gender-equality/gender-based-violence/what-gender-based-violence_en

I've no doubt that the term 'male violence' has a very specific meaning to women but Google doesn't seem to recognise it at all. In fact I had trouble finding the exact definition for it. If someone were to ask me, I'd say physical violence but isn't gendered so could affect anyone.

Now I know, I'd feel better equipped to discuss gendered violence as a male-to-female specific issue that covers a broad range of things that need tackling.

But happy to stand corrected.

@SecretSpAD

No we are making the point that many feminists do not listen to all women if it doesn’t fit their narrative

I'm 51 and when I was young, with grandmothers who taught me that I was as good as and equal to any man, who too, me to Greenham Common and introduced me to a wonderful women accepting of anyone who wanted to join them.

Then I grew up and made a decision to not have children. Since that decision I have been on the receiving end of judgemental comments about that life choice. I've been told I'm not a proper women. My achievements and, worse, my difficulties have been dismissed as not important because I'm not a mother. All of this has been by other women.

I feel like there is no place for women like me in today's feminism.

Really? I didn't have your grandma to guide me, one of mine was too busy on picket lines coordinating fresh pans of scouse, but I was at Greenham and I too chose not to have kids, have had a few judge me on that, tell me I chose an easy life. But here I am, feminist. And fuck anyone who dares tell me I am not 'womaning' right - no matter what their sex!

Don't let women who haven't yeyt found their anger over the patriarchy put you off. Nor those who have REALLY found their anger and might be just a little bit scary!

@Lunar27

I'd not heard of gendered violence so had to look it up. IMO as a man, it does seem to be a much more descriptive term and more appropriately captures all the horrific things men do to women.

ec.europa.eu/info/policies/justice-and-fundamental-rights/gender-equality/gender-based-violence/what-gender-based-violence_en

I've no doubt that the term 'male violence' has a very specific meaning to women but Google doesn't seem to recognise it at all. In fact I had trouble finding the exact definition for it. If someone were to ask me, I'd say physical violence but isn't gendered so could affect anyone.

Now I know, I'd feel better equipped to discuss gendered violence as a male-to-female specific issue that covers a broad range of things that need tackling.

But happy to stand corrected.

"Male violence" explicitly states the problem. "Gendered violence" is vague about which sex is overwhelmingly responsible for violence in society and gives ammunition to the MRAs who try to claim "women do it too".

@Lunar27

I'd not heard of gendered violence so had to look it up. IMO as a man, it does seem to be a much more descriptive term and more appropriately captures all the horrific things men do to women.

ec.europa.eu/info/policies/justice-and-fundamental-rights/gender-equality/gender-based-violence/what-gender-based-violence_en

I've no doubt that the term 'male violence' has a very specific meaning to women but Google doesn't seem to recognise it at all. In fact I had trouble finding the exact definition for it. If someone were to ask me, I'd say physical violence but isn't gendered so could affect anyone.

Now I know, I'd feel better equipped to discuss gendered violence as a male-to-female specific issue that covers a broad range of things that need tackling.

But happy to stand corrected.

Male violence is a fact. Males are violent to other males and to females. They are, by far, the sex more likely to commit violent acts.

Slightly outdated set of stats:

Male offender/Male victim: 65.3%
Male offender/Female victim: 22.7%
Female offender/Male victim: 9.6%
Female offender/Female victim: 2.4%

Gendered violence, at most (and that is a BIG push) explains who is violent against who - but isn't precise, is not as immediate*. Maybe this, written by a man will help - it made me shudder in places, but hey! I am a woman, what do I know?

nypost.com/2019/01/16/the-scientific-reasons-why-men-are-more-violent-than-women/

Gendered violence the term has only one purpose, to hide the facts of male violence. The name change, obfuscation from sex based crimes to a more fluffy gender based issue. We all know what sex is, act and physical reality. But gender? What is that? Polite way of saying sex or an umbrella term for all sorts of self definition name badges etc? This is one of those language changes that women are always on the sharp end of. So yes, we do notice such things and are offended by them in many ways.

That your Google search doesn't find a definition should ring alarm bells for you - LOUD ones. Not least because my Google search "Define male violence" brought up a long list of definitions, additional categories of male violence, scholarly articles etc. Google shapes our worlds in more way than we realise!.

What are its algorithms hiding from you?

UNHCR Gender-Based violence refers to harmful acts directed at an individual based on their gender. It is rooted in gender inequality, the abuse of power and harmful norms. Gender-based violence (GBV) is a serious violation of human rights and a life-threatening health and protection issue.

Doesn't really tell you who does what, does it? How could you formulate a safeguarding policy based on that? Who are you protecting? From whom? If you add just the lightest touch of sex based statictics you'd know that it is men who are violent, mostly to other men, requiring one set of safeguarding rules, but also in quite different ways, to females, requiring a whole different set of rules.

But as long as it is people being violent to people we can define, protect, change neither the aggressor nor the victim!

Fair enough. The link I posted stipulates that it affects women and girls (not the other way round), followed by a long list of abusive behaviour.

Yes, I understand that males are responsible for virtually all violent acts so nothing new there.

Question though. Does 'male violence' cover mental, financial abuse, coercion etc? I didn't think it did, or doesn't immediately suggest so, hence why I thought gendered violence seemed a logical progression but appreciate the loss of 'male' makes a big difference. Probably not to me but am relatively unimportant in this respect.

Just to add, this is what I get when I Google 'define male violence'

Make of it what you will!

Nobody should trust wikipedia. Says man who invented wikipedia.

www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/wikipedia-founder-larry-sanger-democrats-b1885138.html

'I'd not heard of gendered violence so had to look it up. IMO as a man, it does seem to be a much more descriptive term and more appropriately captures all the horrific things men do to women.'

Really? How on earth is it more 'appropriate' and descriptive to have 'gendered' when the issue is male violence? I really would like to hear your reasoning, that doesn't make any sense to me at all.

To me, the phrase 'gendered' violence hints at a formless, indescribably miasma of some dark but nameless force. 'Male violence' is the banal reality - over 90% of homicides worldwide are committed by males, and of course over 95% of sexual assaults are committed by males.

I find it a bit odd that until I stumbled onto Mumsnet as a middle aged woman I'd never heard the term 'male violence', nor had anyone pointed out these very stark and clear facts.

It made the problems seem quite obvious and brought the perpetrators into sharper focus.

www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-and-analysis/global-study-on-homicide.html

@Lunar27

Just to add, this is what I get when I Google 'define male violence'

Make of it what you will!

Indeed. Try looking for stats on how many males are perpetrators of sexual offences/assault/abuse. They are out there (the figure is somewhere between 90 and 98%, depending on source).

But any internet search will show you pages of info on male victims. It's actually quite difficult to find info on male perpetrators.

It's a bit like finding, a couple of years ago, that if you typed in "how many women murdered in [year]" you got a lost of transwomen.. let's see, Google did say they would fix that particular 'snag' and yes! Unhappily, if you type in Women murdered 2021 / 2022 you get an alarming list of women killed by partners etc.

I thought I had kept a screenshot of the year women = transwomen, but now can't find it. But there is a thread on here somewhere with many of us discussing the absolute fuckwittery of it!

@DomesticatedZombie

Indeed. I did chuckle (ironically) when the search results were all male victim based.

I'm still trying to find the string of words that will give me the female side of the story. I fear it might take some time unlocking the Google algorithm 🤦

Really? Is my Google more domesticated/beaten into submission perhaps?

I get - no, wait a just one bloody moment!!!!

About 6,440,000 results (0.45 seconds)
First repsonse:

Scholarly articles for male perpetrators of sexual abuse

That looked good but listed under it...

… male-and female-perpetrated child sexual abuse - ‎Peter - Cited by 166
… responses to female perpetrated child sexual abuse - ‎Bunting - Cited by 81
Female perpetrators of sexual abuse of minors: what … - ‎Tsopelas - Cited by 64

And that happens down the page... the headline might say male perpetratot but the details don't match: men and boys assualted, not so much the female. Male perpetrators, but hey look! Women too!

FFS!

And with the click of an algorithm, the global pattern of MVAW just disappears, like magic.

And yet, billions of women in the world have experience it, to some extent.

@SamphirethePogoingStickerist

I have no idea what is behind Google TBH. It's puzzling but I posted the screenshot of my search.

What we do know is that all these algorithms present results based in our internet use so maybe explains it.

I hate it as we are being fed almost bespoke content that is distorting our world view. As a man, if I didn't know better, I could easily conclude from my search that there isn't a problem and if continued to look up male victims, I'd likely get a barrage of more confirmation bias.

We know Facebook does this already but would think Google would be more neutral.

What we do know is that all these algorithms present results based in our internet use so maybe explains it.

Advertising algorithms do yes. But general Google and much of the internet searches are driven by people at the back end determining what it is they want you to see.

If you make yourself known for one position or another in a subforum, but don't turn up on certain threads to condemn the excesses discussed therein, people will reach certain conclusions about you

Just coming back to this, you can't reach certain conclusions about people that don't post in certain threads. I rarely look at boards, if it doesn't appear in active I rarely see it. So if you've made assumptions because I've not posted on certain threads that I was supposed to, then you'd be wrong.

Also, if a thread title is vague I gloss over it. Or a first post has a link and no context I might close it down. Or my internet goes halfway through reading it [when I''m up in the polytunnel it often disappears] and then by the time I'm back down and reopen it I'll just press active again. There are all sorts of reasons for not posting on different threads. You can't judge people for not posting where you think they should post.

No one on this thread has said they don't care about FGM or online abuse of women. No one on this thread has chanted TWAW.

Several have stated their support for trans rights and refused to discuss what those rights they are supporting are. However, the trans rights agenda is all about TWAW and self-id, the proponents of that agenda are the ones carrying out the abuse of women online the silence of those who support that agenda in the face of the abuse and denigration of women who take a different view says it all.

Where are all these trans rights 'feminists' speaking out and supporting women on the receiving end of online abuse purely for disagreeing that TWAW? Where were they when the woman campaigning against FGM was under attack? Joining in or staying silent.

So you believe that posters on this thread don't give a shiny shit about FGM or online abuse of women because they share an opinion with other people who are nasty arseholes.

Would it be fair therefore, to infer that GC feminists are massive Trump supporters, since they share the same opinion on this matter?

So you believe that posters on this thread don't give a shiny shit about FGM or online abuse of women because they share an opinion with other people who are nasty arseholes.

Their lack of action or speaking out against the above indicates that they really don't give a shiny shit far too busy pandering to those who are doing the attacking and abusing, seems they not only share an opinion they agree with the methods employed against those who don't.

Their reaction to the WiSpa incident for example was very telling, or indeed the incident at a rally in Paris where women who had escaped at great risk to themselves after being trafficked into the sex trade and having suffered physical and sexual violence had items and abuse hurled at them from trans rights supporters. You might have thought trans rights supporting feminists would have been outraged about that and condemned it utterly wouldn't you, but you'd be wrong, apparently it was what those women deserved and all their own fault. They shouldn't have had the temerity to debunk the sex work is work, happy hookers trope.

GC Feminists have been accused of being Putin supporters, bible bashing right wing Christian supporters, fascists, being Trump supporters is just more of the same risible nonsense, I can provide reams of evidence of GC Feminists speaking up against all those, can you do the same for trans supporting feminists speaking out against those in their camp that abuse women online and in real life?

Another day, another 'why don't you call yourselves feminists?!' AIBU thread devolved into trans raging. Gee, I wonder why?

@Hont1986

Another day, another 'why don't you call yourselves feminists?!' AIBU thread devolved into trans raging. Gee, I wonder why?

You mean: another thread about feminism discusses women's rights and current threats to said rights?

If you don't like women 'raging' then maybe feminism is not for you.

@TooBigForMyBoots

So you believe that posters on this thread don't give a shiny shit about FGM or online abuse of women because they share an opinion with other people who are nasty arseholes.

Would it be fair therefore, to infer that GC feminists are massive Trump supporters, since they share the same opinion on this matter?

The sort of people that like their girls all pre-pubertal have the same opinion as trans activists. If we (those that believe that males and females are two completely different sexes) called you the P word, you would be straight onto Mumsnet complaining. So why is it ok to say that we (those that believe that males and females are two completely different sexes) are also Trump supporters because he (potentially) believes that males and females are two completely different sexes?

You are so used to being allowed to slag off feminists who don't agree with you, you forget that people that agree with you are the ones that are sterilising non-conformist kids. We just want laws that protect women and girls against males to be upheld. I do not see why you have to keep objecting to that by making false (oh if you believe that you must like Hitler/Trump/any other maniac.)

It really is tedious. Object with your own arguments if you have them but just give it a fucking rest.