MNHQ - would you mind if we made a Mumsnet banner for MN feminists to march behind?

[sethstarkaddersmackerel]

There were oodles of MNers at the Million Women Rise march in London on Saturday - probably at least 40 including children.

I think a contingent this size really needs its own banner, of the big, cloth variety carried by 2 people.

Now, if we do this we would be happy to discuss design with you so we don't inadvertently do anything to weaken the MN brand.

The text would be open to discussion too, just 'Mumsnet' or 'Mumsnet Feminists' for instance. I've started a thread in Feminism to see what everyone else thinks but would obviously not actually do it without go-ahead from MNHQ.

Does MNHQ have a view on this?

thanks

No problem, you shouldn't be apologising!

Herbex, I see what you mean and fair point.

do you also object to raising money for cancer research because it treats heart disease in a 'flippant, negligible kind of a way', Harpy?

female violence is also a problem but it is still a very small one compared to male violence against women and more importantly, it has different political solutions. Marching against all violence would dilute and weaken the campaign; and people who are determined to find objections would then start saying 'why are you just marching against violence? surely hunger is important too? and what about global warming?'

when thousands of women are not getting raped in the Congo, and twice as women as men are not killed by their partners, and women in the UK no longer have a 1 in 4 chance of being raped or seriously sexually assaulted, then you might make more sense. For now we'll stick to the issues that affect the most people, thanks.

MWR isn't about feminism, it's about the systemic nature of male violence against women which no other group except children experience and which mysogynists determinedly deny. Men do not experience violence to the same degree as women and children do and it has not been sanctioned by history, tradition and religion.

What a load of bollocks to say that MWR treats female perpetrated abuse in a flippant, negligible way. It does nothing of the sort, what a lie. It simply recognises where the greatest problem lies and where the priority is - because if we deal with the sheer acceptability and prevalence of violence against women and children, then we can start to deal with all the other violence.

Of course violence against men by women is a terrible thing - I've never ever seen any feminist suggest otherwise. It's also a relatively infrequent occurrence compared to violence against women which is entrenched in our society. That's the difference.

I think a banner saying Mumsnet Feminists is a great idea. It shows that these are feminists gathered together on mumsnet - which is exactly who is carrying it.

Harpy, much of the violence is committed on people because of their genital configuration, or rather, because they are women. Pretending that is not a factor takes huge denial.

'Dont we all (men, trans etc) deserve to live a life free from violence?'

yup, so give us details of the marches men or women organise against it that you're involved in and I'm sure you'll find a lot of support on here. There were plenty of feminists at Stop the War, as I remember.
Meanwhile, stop telling us how to run our campaigns. Ta.

or, to universalize the principle: if violence is being committed against individuals because of their membership of a group, it makes sense to address that violence as violence against a group. If there was a country where women were going round beating up men, targeting them simply as men, it would make sense to campaign against this victimisation of men. If people were getting beaten up specifically for having blonde hair it would be crazy to ignore that and say 'hey, sometimes people with other coloured hair get beaten up too!' because then you would be unlikely to get to the bottom of the causes and find a way of effectively countering them.

ShriekingHarpy if you set up an inclusive campaign against violence, I'll be happy to come on the march if you tell me when and where it is.

I'll be going to next year's MWR march as well.

I expect if you set up an inclusive anti-violence campaign, most of the marchers would be women, not the men you're so worried about, but never mind, I don't mind marching on their behalf as well as my own. But I'm not going to be told it's not valid to march on my own behalf as well and that I should be campaigning on everyone else's behalf instead of mine and my daughter's, anymore than I'm willing to listen to someone telling me I should be donating to Greenpeace instead of WaterAid. I like WaterAid.

Yes when black people go on marches to call for proper measures against racist violence, do you tell them they should be marching against violence against white people too?

Why are women the only group who are told that it is not valid for them to campaign on their own behalf?

So just as many women injure and abuse people to just the same extent globally as men, do they? What rot.

Well that's clear then Seth. You can make a banner saying "Mumsnet Feminists, although it should be said that not all Mumsnetters are feminists, and also that some of them, irrespective of how they feel about that title, feel that violence against men is terribly important, and therefore if you meet someone who tells you ze is a mumsnetter it is important to remember that ze may not support the stated goals of this march or at least believe that it is an appropriate use of resources. Not Mumsnet resources, which haven't gone into this banner, but, um, government resources? We suppose?".

Lenin didn't say 'must be', she said 'many', which is, erm, true.

and she wasn't talking about exoneration or saying let's not punish people, she was talking about why ending violence against women would benefit men as well as women.

you seem to be proposing denial again here, ShriekingHarpy - you don't want any female abusers to feel exonerated so let's pretend the violence many of them have suffered doesn't exist.
again, I'm not sure denial is a good strategy.

It's a good strategy if you don't think violence against women really matters that much.

But what Lenin says is right - you get to the root of violence and you root out the causes of all violence.

Camila Batmanghelidh frequently draws attention to the abuse that violent young people have already suffered and I don't think she is trying to exonerate them; in fact her work seems to point towards a way of helping prevent it in future.

do you think it is common for women to be at the root of rape then ShriekingHarpy?

Once again you are oversimplifying or distorting the argument TSH, no one has said that.

I personally think a lot of the root of male violence is fear. Patriarchy instills in men the idea tht they have to be strong, providers, not cry, not show vulnerability at the risk of being despised by other men (and lots of women). I have no evidecne from this apart from gut feel but I suspect that for much of their lives, deep down, many men feel fucking terrified of the expectations placed on them and their violence to the women in their lives is one of the results of that.

But I'm not dogmatic about that, I'm prepared to be persuaded I'm wrong and of course there are lots of more immediate causes.