Is there a thread about May scraping the law to help abused women throw out their abusive husbands?

[MmeLindt]

I am insenced to read that a scheme to protect women from abusive partners is to be scrapped.

"Go orders" planned for England and wales would give senior police officers to remove an abusive partner from the family home for two weeks and ban him from being within a certain distance to the house.

This would give the woman time to regroup, and seek help.

I agree Elephants. Feminism isn't about hating men or about seeking to advance women's rights to the detriment of men. It's simply about levelling the playing field and trying to advance women's rights to the point where there is some semblance of equality in society.

Seems pretty straightforward to me.

I'm off to shave my head now. And I renounced sleeping with DP around the same time I gave birth to DD

RamblingRosa But surely as some of the oppression of women is because it suits men, then by default fighting this oppression is going to be to the detriment of men?

It can't be helped. You're going to put some men's noses out of joint.

ElephantsandMiasmas I think men and women should have the equal opportunity to become scientists and other careers, does this make me a feminist?

But, if I am honest, I think that men and women do tend to have differing wants and needs in life and it doesn't surprise me that most women put career before family and that most men are more career-orientated.

I suppose what matters to me is that they have the same opportunities as men.

I would answer your question about admitting not feminists hating all men etc, but I'm on a period and haven't the brain power to work out the double negative bits of the question.

At the moment because women are kept down, more in some places than others, men are given an unfair advantage, it's called male privilege. So until 2009 for example, if a man killed his wife and said it was because she was being annoying, that would be taken into account under the heading of "provocation", and his sentence would be commuted.

So yeah in this case the success of a campaign to protect women meant that some men were worse off (in theory at least) - namely the ones who wanted to get away with wife-murder.

Do you think it is fair that women should bear all manner of terrible treatment, and have their chances in life severely reduced, in order to prevent men from enduring any kind of inconvenience?

And in answer to your scientist question - yeah think so. :)

Of course it's not fair.

I just don't see how the fight for women's rights can be won without putting some men's noses out of joint.
Now I don't care that these men are being put out. Perhaps this is what I should make clear?
Just that a fight for women's rights is not going to be 'won' without upsetting somebody. Namely the men who wish to exploit them.

I am a bit confused now, to be honest.

Why does being a feminist make me a man-hater?

If I am a member of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Birds, does that mean I hate cats cause some cats kill birds?

I can like both birds and cats (in a general sense) just as I can like both men and women.

Sure there is the bloody cat next door who pees in my garden and catches sparrows, I don't like that cat but I do not hate all cats.

Until about 6 months ago I would not even have classed myself as "feminist". Then I started posting on some of the political threads on MN and realised that I am indeed a feminist, in that I believe in equality for women.

It is like one person having 10 apples and the other having nil, if you want the share to be equal, you have to take 5 apples away from the person who has 10 and give them to the person who has nil. Is the person who has lost half his apples going to be happy about it?

Marantha
I think that you are thinking too individually. It is not about the men whose noses will be out of joint. It is about society as a whole, which will benefit from greater equality of the genders.

Yes, there are some who will not like it, but if would stifle social change because some members of the more powerful group might not like it, then we would still have apartheid, black women would not be allowed on buses with white women in Alabama and gays could be discriminated against.

That is the price that has to be paid for social change. It will not always be possible but for the good of society, it has to be done.

MmeLindt Being a feminist does not mean you hate ALL men, but I thought that part of being a feminist was being anti the abuse of women by men so I cannot see how anyone who is anti (and rightly so) these things can like the men who carry them out.
Surely disliking some men is part of feminism?

MmdLindt You can't make an omelette without breaking eggs? I'd agree with that.

As I think of feminism, it's a positive movement. It's not about taking anything away from anyone, except their ability to hurt and exploit and humiliate others.

Your post of 15.30 was pretty much right. Some people are going to be put out by social change, for many reasons. For example if you are exploiting poor women in Sri Lanka, running a sweatshop, and you pay them less than a man would get (so you get richer), and you can rape them when you want (because they're too scared to complain) - yeah you'll be put out if the inequalities behind this system end.

So you get that feminists don't hate men?

Some French people might hate some Dutch people - does that mean that the French hate the Dutch? Shying away from idle generalisations is often a good route to common sense.

marantha

You do break the eggs to make the omelette but you don't kill the chicken.

I dislike violent women as much as I dislike violent men. If I can help victims of either of these violent people I am happy, but I refuse to help one victim more because of their gender.

(now watch as that first sentence is taken out of context )

If one victim is being hurt more, or more often, because of their gender, wouldn't you help that person more? And maybe try to change the reason they were being victimised more often?

Yes. I would endevour to help that gender more, but I would try to change the rules or laws that are allowing that gender to be victimised, but at the same time I would not turn my back on another gender that are suffering the same problems.

I get that SOME (perhaps the majority) feminists do not hate ALL men.

Although I imagine that if a person is a feminist, they would very much dislike the men who hurt women.

I really can't put it any clearer than that.

Then I think we're all in agreement?

I think so

:o

Cool

So feminists do not hate men, as a whole?

It's ok for feminists to work to help women primarily, by virtue of their oppressed status worldwide, without being told off for not helping men first?

And if you/anyone wants to point me towards something that supports male victims of domestic violence, I will certainly do what I can to help?

mm thanks ML

Tarte aux citron?! Tut tut!! I've already told you above about my having the um, 'painters in' . I want a big CHOCOLATE cake.
Call yourself a feminist?!

Despite my name, I don't actually eat an awful lot of chocolate. And never chocolate cake.

Women and men who want each to be treated equally under the law and for things to be fair at home are on the same side. For example I would argue men should have more rights to children on divorce and more paternity rights. You can apply your fairness to the benefit of men. Most men once they know that all feminism means is equal rights under the law and fairness at home are clearly feminist in their views but most people choose not to use the word as it's become sullied but that's all it means.

Very well put, Xenia.

Sadly, even in countries that have passed laws giving equal Maternity/Paternity leave or benefits, the uptake is still low.

In Germany, where we used to live, it is still uncommon to take longer Paternity leave, and those who do are often ridiculed by their colleagues.