So many evil men...can't stand it

[SplitHeadGirl]

First of all, I know fully well that men will get upset at what I think and am about to say, so I would like to clarify that I am talking about EVIL men, not the good, wonderful dads and granddads and husbands and nice single blokes out there....the ones who I KNOW (my brain, not my gut, tells me so) are in a majority, but who seem to be few (is it their deafening silence?)

But any fool can see that the sheer amount of men, who are prepared to do unspeakable things to women and girls (and boys as well as other men, not to mention the vulnerable and the elderly...wow, the list goes on) is just overwhelming. I read today about Anene Booysen, and I was absolutely heartbroken, but yet not shocked. For men to be so diabolical to women is not shocking anymore, and that is men's greatest tragedy.

I have two little daughters, and a little son, and I fear for them at the hands of men. Not women...just men.

I feel like I am thinking out loud with this post, so no worries if no one feels they can respond. I just wish I didn't feel so helpless at the tsunami of male violence.

Pan, every man who does not stand up against violence committed by other men, violence against women, every day misogyny, violence against children, small acts of discrimination and big acts of discrimination, benefits in some way from them if only by tacitly supporting. Every sexist joke bandied about in the pub that goes unchallenged by drinking partners reinforces the legitimacy of that belief. Same goes for racism. If I as a white person refused to challenge racist utterances I would on some level be agreeing with them. And you can be assured that I have harangued opportunistic racists in the street.

I meant I have a law degree! Taught to read for meaning in the greatest possible detail for three years, a skill for which I am often grateful.

Crumbs, it's worse than I thought then!

"So the notion that I, and other men with female loved ones, actually benefit from their oppression is absurd."

I know your circumstances are a little different from many men Pan, but how about the fact that childcare in this country is so expensive means that many women find themselves almost forced to stay at home with small children whether they want to or not, after maternity leave in which they are frequently side-lined, in industries where it can be difficult to get a job in the first place if you're a woman of child-bearing age. All men benefit on some level in these circumstances from being the ones who do not physically carry the babies for 9 months and breastfeed for several more. Until more men stand up and say "hang on, we all need affordable childcare, and we are deeply indebted to women for actually carrying our children so we will make bloody sure their lives are not more shit in the workplace after having them" then women remain at a disadvantage as these things are seen as women's problems, rather than people's problems.

You haven't addressed what Pan asked though Duchesse. How does Pan "benefit from the violence some men commit."

I think he put it perfectly when he said:

Well, most men I know have female loved ones in their lives – I have five close/intimates, a few others less close, and more I just quite like, or rely on for stuff. This lego-land theory of oppression takes no account of the intricacies of human relations. By that I mean whatever harms my female group harms me, and the closer they are to me the more harm done. This isn't specific to me, it's structural in a modern society - it's for all or at least most men.

I have a few female loved ones also, DW, step daughters, friends and I agree that whatever harms them harms me. All I wish for them is that they have a good life free from violence and any harm. So how does violence perpetrated against women benefit us? It doesn't. Quite the opposite.

Violence against women that relegates them to an underclass, which is a world-wide phenomenon, ensures that women are to a large extent globally (and to a less obvious extent in developed countries) removed from the public sphere, reduced in numbers in the workplace, under-represented in many institutions in which their voices deserve to be heard (Parliament anyone?), and means that men benefit by having less competition- both in numbers and in ability.

Does that answer your question?

I'm not sure exactly what you mean about me, duchesse (and I really wouldn't invite speculation on it here) but your point about child birth/rearing/care doesn't negate anything I indicated, I don't think.
I'd also, respectfully, suggest that possessing a law degree doesn't make one infallible on interpretation over all time and space. My qualified and practiced 'specialism' is unpicking 'stories' I am told by people in difficult circumstances. Yes at times I miss a few corkers.

Not really no. None of that makes my life better. To give an example I worked full time under very poor conditions whereas my wife worked part time in an office. We have always shared our money equally. This idea that men are always privileged compared with women of the same class very often doesn't work out in practice.

Male violence against women also helps non-violent men by setting the bar for decent behaviour in males very low.

You can be a hero if you don't rape, don't hit your wife, do the housework, take a large part in child-care, understand feminism.

Women and men are judged differently, and much of that judgement is down to low expectations of men.

I don't think most women are daft enough to give men credit for not being violent ArmyOfPenguins. I think most women expect their menfolk not to be violent.

Neighbour across the road from me thinks her 3rd husband is the bee's knees because he doesn't beat her senseless. He is very much not Mr Perfect. She's so utterly imbued with the notion that it's normal as a woman to be hit that she also sees nothing wrong with her daughter going back time and again to the abusive husband with whom she has 4 children.

Neighbour down the road married to a very strange and shiftless man thinks he's distinctly better than her father who repeatedly beat her as a child until she bled from her ears.

I live in a hamlet of 8 houses. I know this is pure anecdote. It's still at least 20% of the women here living in shit circumstances with very low expectations of their life partner.

"I don't think most women are daft enough to give men credit for not being violent ArmyOfPenguins. I think most women expect their menfolk not to be violent."

That's not true and your privilege is showing.

Inde

Privilege doesn't mean that an individual woman can't "have it better" than an individual man of the same colour, class, education level etc; similarly with an individual black man and white man etc.

It means that, as a whole, one group has privilege over another.

Or do you not believe me or duchesse or countless women who cannot believe their luck when they find a 'nice' man?

Male violence against when is the tool that oppresses women. The fact that oppression is in place gives men privilege.

What is male privilege

inde you are only giving an example of one aspect of life. There are many ways in which men benefit from female oppression which aren't immediately obvious as they appear normal to you.

Straight white male - the lowest difficulty setting. This has been posted a number of times before in FWR. I can't believe that Pan, such a frequenter of these parts doesn't understand how oppression or male privilege works.

And plenty of women and men expect men to be violent, inde. It is all over this thread for a start. So yes, men do get cookies for not being violent.

That is supposed to say male violence against women

oh Army that 'hero' thing is very wide of the mark. I don;t get, ask for, or be given any kudos, as I am sure inde doesn't, for not being a nasty individual. That is nothing to do with privilege. It's unfortunate for you to think it is, imo.

oh and inde many thanks for posting earlier when I was out re the BBE stuff. It's appreciated.

'I think most women expect their menfolk not to be violent.'

I do. My DH is 'nice', I don't consider myself 'lucky', why would I? I exercise agency.

Exactly, how many threads in relationships include the phrase, 'but he's never hit me' while talking about what an absolute shit he is.

Not being obviously violent is considered to be the mark of a good man amongst many women. Sorry to break that to you.

Really Pan? I once saw a man holding his baby on a barstool, drinking a pint, and everyone was saying what a great father he was.

A woman on a barstool with a baby? Probably wouldn't have had the same degree of adulation.

scallops - I'm not a 'frequenter' here tbh - I have this section hidden, I was just intrigued by the OP prior to logging on. I know about patriarchy and 'previlege' thanks, and part of that is also knowing how some people round these parts choose to...stretch the notions to fit in with the points they wish to make.

I'm sorry to here that Duchesse. All the women in my life have good husbands who dote on them. One of their husbands drives me mad because he hardly goes anywhere with his wife but he still loves her in his own way. They are all in long term relationships with non -violent husbands. I know violence in marriages does exist and it's more often the husband but I don't think it's the norm and I still find it hard to believe that many women give their husbands any credit for not being violent.

Oh, and Pan, please don't fucking patronise me.

Social expectations of men are much lower than those of women.

Employment aspirations of women are much lower than those of men.

And in the lives of many people I know, this is exactly as it should be. It is still very difficult to challenge this social reality. I find it very wearisome. And yes, I think it's the thinned of the wedge of gendered violence, as so many people have invested their whole lives and identities in maintaining this status quo, so the reaction to it's being challenged us violent.

Army individual anecdotes like that aren't the winning arguments. Sorry.