Can I talk about men ?

[Blistory]

In light of the recent threads and the perception that some feminists hate men, can anyone confirm that what they really feel about men as a class ? And whether they believe that feminism harms men ?

I see more disrespect for men on the general boards, the 'men just don't see dust', 'I'm as well doing it myself as he makes a mess of it' 'bless them, they just don't get it' 'women are naturally the better parent' types of threads. To be fair, those posts usually attract rightful condemnation but I can't understand why just because feminism demands more of men and expects more of men, feminism is seen as disrespectful or dismissive of men. Surely it's the opposite ?

In the interests of honesty, there are individual men I like, admire, love or respect. There are individual men whom I trust but it has to be said, not unreservedly.

Men, as a class, on the other hand, I fear. I fear the stranger in the dark alley, I fear the man driving the taxi, I fear the men attending conferences with me who decide to retire to their rooms at the same time. Not because I think they are definitely going to harm me but because I equally fear that if someone does harm me, I will be judged for not recognising the danger and protecting myself. This, I blame, not on men but on a patriarchial society that tells me men are predatory and women are victims. I blame it not on men but on a rape culture which reinforces the attitude that women are there for the taking. The only individual men I blame are the ones who rape, kill and assault but I start with the premise that those individual men are not identifiable to me therefore I should be cautious of all. Man hating ? I don't know.

In terms of feminism, I've always been quite comfortable with the idea that whilst not an aim, the accepted by product of feminism will be that men's lives are also enhanced. The prevailing notions that men have to be strong, assertive, to be the bread winner, emotionally detached, not to cry, to be able to physically protect themselves are all damaging to men, particularly those who don't conform to the stereotype. I firmly believe that while feminism seeks to break down barriers, the result of it will be that men also benefit significantly. And I welcome that. If feminism was simply about achieving a position for women that significantly put men in jeopardy, I wouldn't be supportive of it and I don't know many feminists who would.

Given that men who suffer under patriarchy will benefit from feminism, I see no need to actively campaign for men's rights so I'm entirely comfortable with focusing on women. For men who won't benefit, I'm sorry but I just can't shed any tears for someone who has had all the advantages and is now being asked simply to share them.

I've asked, not to be controversial, but because I didn't want to derail any existing threads that are, quite rightly, about putting women first. And I've been genuinely perturbed by the current threads that insist there is a genuine and strong sense of men being hated by some feminists on here. Is it just misunderstanding of language, a lack of understanding of feminism or am I so blinkered by my beliefs that I can't see it ?

as-a-class definitions are used all the time, if people feel that there is a characteristic that is sufficiently representative to warrant discussion and analysis of why other groups don't demonstrate that characteristic to the same degree. as a tool it can be criticised, it's not used by all feminists and it's not used only by feminists and it is not used by feminists all of the time - there are situations where it is not useful

Good post Beach.

The trouble is, that inherent to feminist discourse is the notion that oppression of women is both overt and covert. Explicit and implicit. Seen and unseen.

So, if they say 'women are obsessed with their image because the menz demand it' and a woman says "hold on, I'm a woman and I'm a feminist and I don't wear makeup for them, I wear it for me" the reply would come: "You think you wear it for you, but actually your desire to wear makeup comes from a patriarchal societal upbringing in which you have been bombarded with the message that you aren't a true woman unless you're wearing makeup...."

Well actually, how can you refute that. Anything you say which refutes it goes down as uneducated, ill informed, deluded.

I've not once been hurt by a male. I have been hurt by a female on three occasions (all as a child). What does that say for the argument? Feminists would say 'nothing, it's irrelevant because statistically men are more violent than women.'

lougle that says that women can be violent too, and that that woman or those women who hurt you were no better or worse than if a man had done it, and the violence you suffered and your experience was no better or worse than if a man had done it, and that it's horrible and abusive and shit and shouldn't happen

but you've said yourself that statistically men are more violent than women. that means that within that there will be people who experience violence from women, and there will be people who experience violence exclusively from women. that won't be the experience of the majority of those on the receiving end of violence, but it is not any less violent for that. from a feminist analysis POV however, given the huge disparity in terms of which sex is the majority perpetrator of violence, this would fall within "women can behave in a shit way too, and that shouldn't happen", and "people (espeically those whoare vulnerable such as children) can be on the receiving end of violence from women too, and that shouldn't happen". what it doesn't fall within is "there is a group of people that is oppressed due to the violence of women as a class", because the analysis shows that "there is a group of people that is oppressed due to the violence of men as a class". it does not seek to minimise your experience - oppressed groups can behave in violent ways to other people too - it seeks to analyse and describe the problems at societal level

I would say "women are statistically more likely to be in poverty".
I baulk at "women as a class are obsessed with appearance".
Can you not see the difference. It's an emotional reaction. The first way of speaking doesn't imply a prejudice about the financial situation of any individual woman. The second makes it sound like it's ok to make that assumption about an individual woman.
I accept that's probably not the intention but it's how it sounds to me (not a social scientist) and I know it's how it sounds to others.
Therefore it's not a term I use it really want to engage with.

I don't think "women are violent" has an equivalence with "men are violent" because women are not responsible for the vast majority of violence; men are. Statistically speaking, violence is a male issue. Sure NAM, but insisting that I cannot speak about the gendered quality of violence means I cannot speak about one of its important aspects and I can not speak about the effects of that violence on my day to day life. For example, I am more likely to be deferential to a man because of the fact of male violence.

I don't fear any man. That's media bull shit dressed up in your own insecurities.

I don't fear any woman either, and professionally speaking I've had more reason to be concerned there as immediate/direct impact, where man tends to be impact in a bigger picture kind of way.

outself has worded that better - i do agree that a man's violence has a wider impact beyond the pain of the individual in that it reinforces and perpetuates the current patriarchal structure in a way that a woman's violence does not

Beachcomber said 'If men as a class do not exist (or are beyond analysis), then logically so are women. Game over feminism.^

Why game over? Why not say, 'Maybe this analysis is too blunt a tool.' Or 'this is a starting point, not an end point.'

Within class analysis, does it drill down further that the gender divide? Is there any analysis of, say, the classes of violent men vs non-violent men? (I'd prefer violent vs non-violent people, but let's stay with the OP's theme of talking about men). What is known about the differences between the class of men who absorb the doctrine of hyper-masculinity, and those who reject it?

Objecting to the use of "as a class" (is this termed "class analysis?) doesn't mean silencing talk of gender and violence. It's just far less offensive to say things like "x% of women suffer violence at the hands of a man" or "drastically far more violent crimes are perpetrated by men" or whatever than "men are violent" or even "women are victims of violence".

Grr was supposed to be "statistically" not "drastically".

See, I would say that violence is a key part of masculine privilege because the prevalence of male violence leads to deference which I do not experience as a woman and which puts me at a disadvantage relative to men as a class

I am not too concerned about causing offence, as I've outlined above I think the anger that arises in such discussions could be a positive thing

museummum those are all perfectly fine ways to describe the prevalence of violence amongst men. if you then want to extend from those statistics and assertions to their impact on wider society you need terms that will help you describe which groups of people are affected in which ways

Saying that " x% of women suffer violence at the hands of men" brings it down to just the experience of those women. It fails to recognise the impact that that percentage has in shaping the perceptions of all women and indeed all men.

We, as a society, send out the message that women and girls need protected. And let's be honest, it's protection from men. If it's just a media message, that needs to be addressed. It's a genuine risk, it needs to be addressed.

I don't think my 'I'm afraid of men' statement is being understood. I'm not afraid of men that I come across on an everyday basis, I don't cower from them in the street but I am aware, that in situations where that individual man is probably no risk to me at all, that I take precautions in a way that I simply wouldn't do if the individual was a woman. Sensible common sense approach or media driven paranoia ? I don't know

outsSelf - the offence it causes is to me... for myself as a 'women but not all women' and for my son as a 'men but not all men', i mean he's only an infant, but he will be a grown man one day. And for my father and husband... who have awareness of how the system benefits them and are not sexist in their own personal sphere of influence but are not feminism activists and do not give their time or our family time to fighting the patriarchy.

I just don't like the terms, and I think it's quite possible to avoid using them without silencing feminism. And I think that they are terms that put men and also women with positive relationships with the men in their lives onto a defensive footing which I think shuts down positive constructive discussion.

But I also don't want to get into an argument, I think I have explained my point clearly. I doubt anybody will change their thinking and I don't intend to try to change anybody's mind, just to explain that it is possible to be feminist and uncomfortable with that terminology.

I also have a son and the idea that men are violent brings me to consider carefully the ways I might discourage him from identifying with and embracing violence as part of his identity. I'm also keen that he does notice the automatic deference he will receive for achieving manhood and help him to interpret that as a privilege.

I'd ask you to consider what your ire around this issue arises from the language I adopt about male violence and would really hope that you would see that the real anger should arise from the fact that we live in a society which wields male violence as a tool of privilege and that our boys and men are coopted into that at great cost to everyone.

Also, people objecting are are objecting on the basis that men they know aren't violent. But those men absolutely do benefit from male violence, which is why I don't feel that individual men should be able to opt out or disassociate themselves from the idea that men are violent

No person can opt out or dissociate themselves completely from issues that are pervasive in our society. Not you, not me. Unless you want to divide society into two groups, one of which is utterly helpless and the other totally dominant. We all have a responsibility.

Well why the need to opt out then?

Men and women aren't equally violent and the effects of violence are experienced by them differently. That is not at all saying men are absolutely dominant and women are victims at all.

I never said anyone should opt out. You brought it up. I said we all have to opt in, to fix problems within our society.

But how is it different really from me hating when people say 'cyclists run red lights'? I am a cyclist, I don't run red lights, I know some do.

I guess you'd say the difference is as a non-red-light-running cyclist I don't benefit from the actions of those who do run red lights.

I just don't believe that the 'men as a class' and 'women as a class' approach is more useful in affecting change than awareness raising about the actual figures/statistics and a rallying call for all like-minded good people to all unite across genders to equalise or level those statistics.

"Obsessed with" sounds different to because it is different - obsessed is usually used negatively!

"Women are more concerned about personal appearance than men" (where the statement is referencing both as a class) probably evokes less of an emotional response...?

It can't hurt to pursue analysis down both lines, we may uncover different facets of causes and (hopefully) solutions.

I don't think it's inherently harmful to either sex to examine them "as a class". The factor is who is doing the analysis and why.

If someone is a mysoginist (or misandrist for that matter), the analysis is going to coloured by their starting point.

I think anyone who is merely engaging with the issues, thinking about and looking forward to solutions should be cherished and respected irrespective of wether we agree all the time. Our real opponents are the apathetic.

Anyone who makes sweeping statements about a group of people numbering in the billions is beyond contempt - and simply adding "as a class" doesn't change that. It's basically the gender equivalent of "I'm not racist but...".