Why ARE some men so horrible to women?

[jezestbelle]

I recently posted about an awful weekend in Paris essentially spoiled by street harassment or other womens sad stories about it. I have to admit it has kind of coloured my view of men as Ive returned to London and to work. I am not naive or stupid, I know that most people do not engage in this kind of behaviour, but Im just really trying to fathom why, what it is they who do it get out of it. I mean if occsaionally a woman cracked and said ok then I will go to bed with you as a result of catcalling or whatever well I still wouldnt agree with it but you could see a certain logic..but I refuse to believe that has ever happened.
Another thing Ive noticed is women I think are almost self hating and almost gravitate to men who treat them badly, again kind of unfathomable... Also am kind of fearful of the male sex drive right now more for my lovely DD than me. If it really is as powerful as they say can it actually be controlled? I know I may sound paranoid but this is where my head is at. I should add that I do know some really lovely kind and genuine guys who would never dream of harassing a woman, I am even wondering about them is it just that they have supreme self control or something?

You might need something stronger to protect you!

You are probably right! I spent a few minutes with my finger hovering above the 'post message' button

Ok I'll bite:

Feminism is not a 'church', it is not a 'united' movement, there is no 'orthodoxy', it's not a 'hate movement', nor do feminists in general perceive themselves as 'victims'.

If you genuinely believe any of that you're so ignorant that it's not even worth engaging with you I'm sorry to say.

I can see why you would irritate women in any discussion and why they're so dismissive.

If someone's around, kinder and more patient than I, who cares to engage with you seriously, good luck to you both.

Well I shan't flame you Pan as your post is at least genuine..

But this: "By that I mean many feminist seeing themselves only as victims, and victims cannot exist without a villain, in this instance, men"

IMO, plenty of feminists recognise that the problem is not men as much as it is society and attitudes that have been passed down and are slow to change. It's more complex than just men although they obviously benefit from a lot of the attitudes and some take pleasure in perpetuating them.

There.. I hope you didn't need a fire-proof suit for that as it was nothing more than a warm breeze..

pan, I've only ever met feminists who dislike the patriarchy and violent men and want to change society for their sons as well as there daughters.

I'm not sure his post being 'genuine' is a recommendation.

On a thread about why some men are so horrible to women, he wants to turn the discussion to why some women are so horrible to him.

You said 'Lots of the pictures on that FB page mention it.'

I didn't see it reoccurring lots of times. I first saw it on the 18th entry in the list.

Oh, Pan, you've been here long enough to distinguish between "man" as in you in all your trendy lefty feminist glory and "men" as a class? Surely to goodness you don't expect NAMALT?

"
You said 'Lots of the pictures on that FB page mention it.'

I didn't see it reoccurring lots of times. I first saw it on the 18th entry in the list."

Ah. Did you also spot that it was to statement I didn't understand which is why I asked about it. Happy to change "lots" to "some".

It's a minor point, Bertrand. I understood your question, and in the wider context, I get where you are coming from. I just didn't see it in evidence on the page. It probably wasn't worth me mentioning it on reflection.

pan, it's great that you have the confidence to share your views. It's something that few women do, because we are taught from a young age that girls are quiet and soft spoken, and those of us who don't conform to the stereotype are called bossy and argumentative.

I think you need to be aware that one of the reasons some women (including myself) are drawn to feminism is because we're sick of feeling silenced. I use FWR because I want somewhere to discuss my experiences of sexism without being told what to think by someone who has never been on the receiving end. I suspect that's why you get a lot of 'just listen to women'.

Pointing out 'not all men are like that' is patronising. I don't know anyone who genuinely thinks that all men are misogynists, but that doesn't mean we can't discuss how to deal with those who are.

Saying 'but what about male victims of DV or prostrate cancer' will elicit little sympathy because while myself and other women are trying to solve the problems faced by women the least you can do is try to solve your own problems.

Finally, about sweeping generalisations. It's a catch 22 situation.

Option A: Giving the full explanation "according to a pan European study carried out in 2007 in which crimes statistics were analysed it was found that the crimes committed by men are 3 times more likely to involve violence and..." Feminists get accused of being overly academic and making people feel stupid.
Option B: Giving the shorthand "men are more violent than women". Feminists get accused of making sweeping generalisation.

Often, we get accused of both being overly academic and making sweeping generalisations at the same time.

Twinkle said;

'Feminism is not a 'church', it is not a 'united' movement, there is no 'orthodoxy', it's not a 'hate movement', nor do feminists in general perceive themselves as 'victims'.

If you genuinely believe any of that you're so ignorant that it's not even worth engaging with you I'm sorry to say.'

Twinkle, a lot of those points re-occur on the WaF Facebook page. So Pan might be ignorant, and not worth engaging. Fair enough, feminism isn't for him. It's primarily for women. So how do you engage with them? Or can they be dismissed as ignorant and not worth engaging with too?

That was a made up study, btw, illustrative purposes only.

" Fair enough, feminism isn't for him. It's primarily for women. So how do you engage with them? Or can they be dismissed as ignorant and not worth engaging with too?"

I have no idea. I have tried. I have even asked them. But the prevailing mood seems to be that if I need to ask then they will not want even to listen to anything I might say. And they get very angry with me. And no of course they can't be dismissed. But I am at a complete loss as to how to engage with them. Have you got any ideas?

I would be happy to engage with Pan too. But he knows all this stuff already.

If I did have some ideas, wouldn't they be dismissed as mansplaining? I think it would be perceived as me telling (the collective) you how to do feminism.

I feel as though I am on dangerous ground here

I wasn't suggesting that you explain feminism. But if you have any ideas as to how women who reject the idea can be engaged...........

Do I really have to engage with WaF? Yes I think many of them are very ignorant. Shockingly so.

Ok - well to take the most recent page:

There's one woman claiming she doesn't need feminism because 'if every man is a potential rapist so is every woman', one because she was 'never told not to pursue entomology because I'm a woman', one because 'I refuse to think I'm oppressed' one because 'no-one needs a movement that calls them weak', one because 'I'm not a victim', one because 'I don't hate men', one because 'regretting sex doesn't make it rape', one because 'finding body hair unattractive is perfectly ok', one because she's 'strong and independent'.

In summary: pretty much all the women who comment on that page have a distorted perception of feminism and many of conceptions of it appear to be filtered through sexist misrepresentations.

All of them fail to acknowledge that the very independence that makes them say they don't need feminism is entirely due to previous feminists who made that independence possible. Every single right they take for granted was fought for. They want to take advantage of the gains of feminism but not acknowledge their debt.

If any of those woman found themselves pregnant in a country in which abortion was illegal, found themselves in a job where their male counterparts were being paid 30% more for the same workload, where they were sexually harassed out of a job, where they suffered a sex crime and the police accused them of lying etc... they'd discover they needed feminism pdq.

As I said earlier: take these so-called anti-feminists to an age before feminism: before the right to education, to work, to vote, to go out alone, to your own assets and children after marriage, to say no to sex... Or take them to Saudi Arabia where women have virtually no rights... they'd see what 'anti-feminism' really means, and they'd all want to come screaming back to the West in 2015.

All of them fail to acknowledge that the very independence that makes them say they don't need feminism is entirely due to previous feminists who made that independence possible. Every single right they take for granted was fought for. They want to take advantage of the gains of feminism but not acknowledge their debt.

If you read through a lot of them, you'll notice that many of them specify '3rd Wave feminism' or 'modern feminism' as being separate to the feminism which achieved all the things you believe it did.

"In summary: pretty much all the women who comment on that page have a distorted perception of feminism and many of conceptions of it appear to be filtered through sexist misrepresentations."

And the media has done such a good job of both creating and reinforcing that distorted perception that it is practically unshiftable.

'All of them fail to acknowledge that the very independence that makes them say they don't need feminism is entirely due to previous feminists who made that independence possible. Every single right they take for granted was fought for. They want to take advantage of the gains of feminism but not acknowledge their debt.'

That bit right there in bold (I hope) is absolutely key for me.

I have an 18 year old daughter who is off to Uni in 3 weeks. If we look back 50 years ago, she really doesn't understand the gains that have been made on her behalf. I try to engage her in political conversations, I've bought her feminist books (well, Caitlin Moran), but her head is filled with the usual teenage clap-trap and she doesn't dwell on politics too much.

I think if I want to engage her about almost anything, I have to emphasise the positive aspects, otherwise I am seen as nagging/on her case/a moany old man. I think this applies to feminism - in fact, any political discussion come to that.

I'm a lefty at heart. I've had so many discussions with younger people at work about unions, which are widely perceived no be no longer needed. The only way I get anywhere is if I try to emphasise the positive gains made by unions on behalf of workers in the last 100 years. That is why you now have rights, H&S, access to legal process, an unfair dismissals procedure etc etc.

If all I do is play the victim card, or if that is all people perceive me to be doing, they switch off. Feminism has achieved a shitload on behalf of women in the last 100 years, but this can get rather lost amongst the anger and arguing.

PanGalacticGargleBlaster is not Pan.

If you read through a lot of them, you'll notice that many of them specify '3rd Wave feminism' or 'modern feminism' as being separate to the feminism which achieved all the things you believe it did

I did read a lot of them. Far too bloody many.

Modern feminism cannot be separated from historical feminism, it's all based on the same principles. But that doesn't mean anyone's obliged to agree with all of it. Feminism is a vast philosophy incorporating many different individuals, different movements, different perspectives, different concerns, different charities etc.

Those women on WAF could say: 'I am a feminist but there are certain things in contemporary feminism I disagree with.'

That's fine. But I'd be surprised if they disagreed with the feminist campaigns against FGM, the women's charities that provide rape and dv support - that they and their friends may need to use at some point, the shelters that house abused women and children, the charities that support and rehabilitate trafficked women, the campaigns for equal pay, the campaigns against sexual harassment, the campaigns on rape on high school and uni campuses.

When it comes down to it: it's not actually modern feminism these women are repudiating, but mostly its distorted caricature presented in popular culture by those antipathetic to it.

Twinklestein

Have you read any of the responses from feminists to the posts on WaF?

I wandered over the site since it was referenced on a MN thread. I agree, the large majority are responding to a caricature - however, some of the responses to those posts are quite illuminating, with regards to where they are getting their opinions of feminism.

", some of the responses to those posts are quite illuminating, with regards to where they are getting their opinions of feminism."

Could you point me to them? Because as I said, whenever I ask where people get their perceptions of feminism from, they won't tell me.

You can find out all you want to knoow about how feminists are perceived by typing feminists are into your search and letting google autofill do the rest.