Is there a conflict between PC speech codes and the need to name sources of misogynistic violence?

[OTheHugeManatee]

I've been following debates around the 'trans' issue on FWR with interest for some time. More recently I've also been appalled by the mass sexual attacks in Cologne and the related issue of the stilted, minimising way those attacks have been discussed - particularly in the left-leaning press.

It's got me wondering about possible conflicts between PC speech codes and feminist analysis. I think this is a feature of both these issues. To be clear, by 'PC speech codes' I mean the cultural taboos that make it socially unacceptable to make generalisations about certain groups of people.

In trans debates, trans people are cast as a minority within a minority, and women are re-framed as the ones with privilege who must cede space to ease their suffering. Much of the feminist discussion around this is, as I understand it, devoted to challenging this narrative.

In the Cologne attacks, there was a visible reluctance by left of centre media to be explicit about the cultural/ethnic dimension to the attacks. The implicit view, from some quarters, seems to be that the right of white Western women to move about at night free from sexual assault weighs equally - or even lower - than the right of refugees to be protected from ugly stereotypes and/or racist reprisals, and that therefore the ethnic/cultural dimension of the attacks should be played down lest it exacerbate the suffering of refugees.

Elsewhere though in FWR I've seen robust defenses of the validity and need for generalisations, when it comes to class analysis of gendered violence. As I understand it, it is reasonable and valid to generalise about men as a class, even if NAMALT, because otherwise it is impossible to name the problem.

So what I'm wondering is this: if generalisations about men as a class are defensible in the interests of naming feminist problems, does the same apply to subsets of men? For example if misogynistic violence is a major problem among men of a particular culture in the UK (even relative to the general depressingly high levels of misogynistic violence in the general population, and even if NAM[culture]ALT), are we comfortable spelling that out?

If there are classes of people among whom misogynistic violence is more prevalent than the already high norm in the UK, I want to be able to name the problem. But I think there is often substantial resistance to this. There may well be valid and internally coherent reasons for this, but I think that from a feminist viewpoint we need to think about what's going on here.

I think this is very difficult ground for feminism. I'm loth to give examples, for fear of derailing what's intended as a general musing, but here's a fairly incendiary one. There are persistent and worrying rumours coming out of Sweden that sexual violence against women has skyrocketed in that country in recent years. This is clearly a feminist issue, and one that should surely be tackled vociferously by feminist campaigners. You'd think. However there are also persistent rumours that the overwhelming majority of this violence is perpetrated by recent immigrants of Arab/North African origin. But there is an almost total blackout in the 'respectable' mainstream Swedish press around this; the only news outlets willing to touch it are right-wing outfits such as Breitbart, and frankly bonkers conspiracy mongers like the Gatestone Institute.

The rumours relate to Sweden, but imagine you're a feminist in Sweden hearing these rumours. Do you write it off as lies and hate-mongering? Perhaps it is nothing but lies and hate-mongering. I don't know and can't verify it either way. I hope it is. But perhaps (like Rotherham) it isn't. So should you take a stand for women and say 'I'm going to risk contributing to a right-wing, racist discourse because if there is any possibility that it's true it should be investigated and stamped down on hard, because I want to stick up for the women being assaulted'? Or should we be saying 'Overall I think Swedish women have a pretty easy time of it, considered globally, and I don't want anyone conducting racist pogroms in my name, so I'm going to keep schtum'?

More generally, I am wondering if we need to think explicitly about what, as feminists, we do when there is a conflict between the aims and needs of feminism and those of other 'rights' groups. (It might just be me who needs to think about this; for all I know you've all already worked it out). But I think there are some conflicts, and the Cologne attacks and trans rights thing points to that. And I think there's a general, vague presumption among many people who consider themselves generally right-on that this is not the case, and that all the various needs of the various rights campaigns are either aligned by definition, or can somehow be balanced out. And yet, it seems self-evident to me that the needs of different rights campaigns often conflict; witness trans and women's rights. And when this 'balancing' takes place, again and again it is my observation that it's the rights of women that have to give ground.

My personal stance is that women's rights come first and if there is a conflict between women's rights and another rights campaign I'm for women. But what do others think? I think it's a live issue for feminism, a difficult one (at least difficult for feminists who think of themselves as generally left-wing, anti-racist, right-on etc) and one that I've not seen much discussion on.

I'm coming steadily to the idea that 'intersectionality' needs a far more robust critique than it typically receives

Second that. I think the concept, as originally intended, has been so traduced by idiots as to be practically worthless.

6. Worrying about being called racist in discussions which touch on race is like the calling card of white privilege. There is no nice way of saying this, and I am aware of saying it to nice, well meaning people, but seriously, if you are worried about being called racist, what you are performing is your racial privilege. People who talk against racial prejudice in discussions like this are immediately shut down with 'you are calling me racist'. Privileging your own feeling that it is not nice to be called racist over the actual problem of creating racist discourses and challenging racist structures is definitionally a racial privilege.

There is no nice way of saying this, and I know you are well-meaning, but seriously, that sounds like a load of pointless, mealy-mouthed Oppression Olympics gibberish.

Outsself, you're being very smug and sanctimonious. Discussing cultural issues around the ways that men from the cultures reported were involved in these uniquely specific, probably connected incidents are misogynist is not "punching down". It's a reasonable examination of the facts we have available. It does not mean that people don't care about misogyny as a global issue, and yes it is minimising to suggest we should care more about the perpetrators than the victims and the women who might be hurt in future and not "punch down".

Attitudes like yours mean that in Sweden its now illegal to collect ethnicity data for sexual assaults. Attitudes like yours meant that not one fucking person would speak up for the Rotherham girls for over 10 years. And yes, I do see the connection between this and the trans agenda.

I would certainly point to male violence on campus as a reason to reduce male college admissions if the leader of my country put in place a policy that led to 80% of new students being male.

Little secret I am not white or naive and I still think this is unusual.

Rape culture on college campus is a constant theme amongst my American relatives who are also black. It is a big deal.

I agree Central Park wildings were also a massive deal at the time.

I am not shocked that the daily mail is not taking a nuanced stance. But sexual assault is not a white lady problem. And framing it as such is just peculiar to me. Since I am very much female and not white. I expect the law to prosecute all offenders and if Katie Hopkins gets her rocks off at the same time so bloody what.

Good post Melinda.

My blackness does not shield me from assault. There isn't some black people meeting where I get stamped a special case exempt from the problems of marauding sexual predators.

And in the pecking order of justice black women don't fare massively well. So by backing away from Cologne for racial sensitivity reasons is this for my benefit because do tell me how.

I think what worries me about the focus on the ethnicity / religion of the Cologne attackers is, that such a focus can clearly be linked to a political objective (anti immigration) that has nothing to do with women's rights.

It's inevitable unfortunately, not a legitimate reason to cover things up and pretend there is no link between the attackers, and arguably, bending over backwards to ignore the issue hands an open goal to the far right.

It is considered worse because it involves dozens of perpetrators simultaneously sexually assaulting a woman or girl. The number of perpetrators is considered an aggravating factor in UK law in rape and sexual assault, and this is also the case in the law of other countries.

It is also considered worse because it happened multiple times in the same location at the same time, which would be considered a breakdown of social order.

It is also considered worse because of the difficulty the victims faced in exiting the situation despite the public venue.

Number of perpetrators, number of victims, and victims struggling to exit situations of social disorder are all widely considered to be indicators of a worsening situation than we expect in civil society.

YYY. Great post almond.

This is a specific kind of attack. It is both relevant and important that all elements of it are examined.

Also what happens if there is a coordinated attack of migrant women within a processing centre by migrant men. At what point do we talk about this and say this is unusual, and how do we tackle this manifestation of sexism. As well as totally unacceptable.

On the In the news section there have been excellent posts connecting these incidents to wider misogyny in society by looking at the nature of the police and media response. You might want to look there Slug, although there are about five different threads so that section of the discussion might be difficult to find.

I think Melinda, outsself, myself and others are arguing that we should look at how to prevent events like cologne in a broader context of sexual assault against women. Which is hard to do because this is seen as a special event.

It is a specific event involving a type of gang attack on women which hasn't really been seen much in Europe but happened in Tahrir Square and other places. It seems to have a name, which maybe a misinterpretation of the facts, but personally I'd like to hear those facts. Doing both, considering both the wider and specific cultural contexts, isn't mutually exclusive. Anything else is a bit of a timid, mealy-mouthed cop-out IMO.

I am not picking on you slug but there was a long running thread about feminism for woc and we talked about how white feminists get very concerned about racial optics which in Cologne is irrelevant because right wing press will cover it. But when the woman in question isn't white there is silence from both the left and right. So in effect rape culture and feminism becomes for and about white women with preferably white protagonists.

There was way more nuance in that thread but this thread is following the script of prioritising non white men over women.

I mean media feminists rather than mn feminists who I find less cowardly in the main.

melinda's point has not been made by the usual left wing feminist journalists and my question is why. It's valid and cogent yet there has been nothing said. And I find that really troubling.

Also what happens if there is a coordinated attack of migrant women within a processing centre by migrant men. At what point do we talk about this and say this is unusual, and how do we tackle this manifestation of sexism. As well as totally unacceptable.

Yes. I personally spend a lot of time online talking about the misogyny in society, particularly sexual violence and sexual harassment, in general terms. I don't feel the need to have to display my liberal credentials and carefully qualify everything I say before I can speak about a specific instance of sexual violence or harassment. I really don't require a reminder that misogyny is a problem in society, as I have experienced it multiple times at first and second hand.

As you say, this event is a particular, unusual manifestation of sexism and it needs to be discussed in depth without leaving out certain key details.

slug I know you are bowing out for the night. But I am really talking about the left leaning media. All articles I have seen have been concerned with backlash against migrant men and the rise of the right wing. The women attacked were ignored in all this.

It would have been very easy to talk about a continuum of sexism and the dangers of large groups of under employed young men (tbf the ft did today). But they did not. Mn were smart enough to do this pretty quickly so where is the guardian.

Why am I arguing this? Because I think that homing in on the ethnicity / religion of these perpetrators as the ONLY thing that motivated them, the PRIMARY thing even, is an analytical mistake that will lead to policy change that harms people who shouldn't be harmed and doesn't really help people who ought to be helped.

Yes, that's what the far right are doing. Of course they will capitalise on it. But liberal people ignoring that the cultural attitudes and background of the perpetrators may be at all relevant helps them in those political goals, rather than hinders them. People can quite clearly see that the Guardian, BBC are deliberately misrepresenting the situation in their coverage. I think it's almost as harmful and wrong to do this as what the far right are doing, tbh.

The most obvious ways of reducing the risk of this happening again is to a. acknowledge it is a specific form of abuse that happens in certain situations, b. have the police prepare methods of preventing it in their crowd policing tactics and c. have event organisers and town planners take into account the dangers to women in the way events and environments are designed.

Can anyone explain why some posters seem to see a) wanting to express disgust and worry with the phenomenon that happened in Germany and Sweden and b) tackling the whole misogyny agenda of daily attacks on women are mutually exclusive.

The debate is beginning to sound like the sort of argument anti-feminists make when they condemn us for worrying about first world problems when women are being abused in, say, Afghanistan.

Surely we are capable of doing two things at once i.e. recognising that what has just happened in Germany and Sweden (and may happen again if authorities continue to sit on their hands and cover up the problem instead of cracking down on it), and at the same time, using it as a "lightbulb" moment to recognise that it is what happens daily to women writ large and taking it seriously.

Are we really on opposite sides here? I don't think so. I don't see it as an either/or situation.