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.

Is it time to abandon the idea that equality / rights lobbies are all naturally compatible with one another and part of the same cause?

I've never felt that all rights are naturally compatible, because all rights are balanced. For instance, my "right" to free speech is balanced against the rights of other people to go about their daily lives without listening to hate speech.
But that doesn't mean they are never naturally compatible. For instance, access to good quality childcare could be seen as a priority for feminists and socialists.

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.

I don't always agree with that statement (but then I'm a leftie, anti-racist and somewhat moral relativist). It depends on the circumstances.

if generalisations about men as a class are defensible in the interests of naming feminist problems, does the same apply to subsets of men?

In my opinion, yes. We absolutely should be allowed to collect and analyse crime data on sub sets of men. And we should not be afraid to name any problems spat out from said analysis.

Melinda: I agree.

But I also think there's something to be said for maintaining that feminism is focuses around the experiences and rights of female people. So feminism is interested in race and class and disability and so on because they affect women in particular ways. A feminist perspective offers something that an anti-racist or a disability studies perspective may not simply because they don't necessarily take women as a focus.

I think that in some ways contemporary feminism has become far too apologetic about focusing on women.

To say that doesn't go against important critiques about feminism needing to take account of the breadth of women's experience and about the classism and racism and so on that have been part of too much feminist thought in the past. Of course feminism should be about all women and should take into account that women are affected by racism and classism in particular ways. But it should retain a focus on women.

I just think it's too easy (particularly for people who have been socialised as women) to be encouraged to put aside a focus on women and instead to take up racism or classism or whatever else as the more important issue. And important work that's happened within feminism to avoid marginalising some women has unfortunately resulted in a further shift away from women onto other aspects of identity. That isn't very helpful and creates situations where websites like 'everyday feminism' are bending over backwards to avoid actually focusing on women in case they are accused of being exclusionary.

It should be perfectly OK for feminists to be able to say, 'Actually, what I'm concerned with here is women's experiences and women's rights.'

I've mentioned before on other threads I'm worried that now those abhorrent actions happened in Cologne to native European women has finally provided a pitiful amount of media coverage which has seen the debate opened just a fraction.

The fact that hardly anyone raised hell that women refugees in Europe are being treated abominably by their fellow refugees does now smack a little bit of racism. Nobody seemed to give a damn until it started happening to white women.

I'm pro refugee, really I am, but I don't think it's unreasonable to expect people coming in to respect the cultures and laws they are coming into. We have an opportunity here to raise awareness of both assaults against native women, and the plight of refugee women.

These people have to learn to integrate with us, and that can't happen if treating women like this is tolerated on religious grounds.

You feminists have the absolute best argument in the world for your cause. Female education, reproductive rights and bodily autonomy for women never fail to reduce poverty, famine and diminish extremism in countries where those rights exist.

Women should not be sidelined anywhere these things are foundational to a better world for everybody.

Im not sure that 'feminism is important because the things that feminists want will also make the world better for men everyone' is quite what we should be viewing as 'the best argument in the world'. Reproductive rights shouldn't start becoming important just because they affect the economy or the environment. They should matter because they affect women's lives and their life chances. That should be enough.

And I don't agree that no one gave a damn about how women in other cultures are treated (whether they become refugees or not) until some white women were assaulted. I think that's the kind of argument that stops people from taking feminist positions.

The issues around cultural relativism that people on this thread are discussing are embroiled with the extent to which we are able to comment on how women in other cultures are treated. It's hard for Western feminists to comment on these kind of issues without being accused of cultural imperialism. Yet, you're likely to then be accused of racism for not speaking about it.

My accusation isn't at feminism more the media in general, and if we all are supposed to get along in this multicultural paradise it cannot be done at the expense of the native/dominant culture. If you'll note native Americans were very welcoming and tolerant to Europeans which didn't turn out overly well for that culture.

We either assert our own cultural values in our own home countries or we surrender them to a culture that is willing to dominate. There are plenty of people of every race, culture and religion that are perfectly compatible with us in Europe I don't see it as racist to open our arms to those people and welcome them in, and reject those that don't. We don't have to discriminate to be discerning.

StepAway: I agree with your first statement. It's interesting how one of the insults often thrown at feminists by MRAs is that feminists are strangely silent when it comes to supporting our sisters (as they put it) in other cultures.

By bothering about being accused of cultural imperialism or racism if we criticise any other culture than white Western culture we are doing exactly what they criticise us for. Criticising doesn't mean forcing our views on other parts of the world. But not speaking up about women's rights everywhere because we might get accused of cultural imperialism or racism is cowardly.

As I said bugger culture and bugger also unfounded criticisms of racism.

We either assert our own cultural values in our own home countries or we surrender them to a culture that is willing to dominate. There are plenty of people of every race, culture and religion that are perfectly compatible with us in Europe I don't see it as racist to open our arms to those people and welcome them in, and reject those that don't. We don't have to discriminate to be discerning.

YY

I'm not sure it is cowardly, or about fear of being criticised.

I think it's more that feminist arguments are dismissed on the grounds of cultural imperialism on one hand and racism on the other. This works to silence feminists and, indeed, then criticises feminists for that silence.

Which is why we should speak up.

There is a clear link between cultural background / upbringing and sexual assaults. If there weren't then surely sexual assault would be equally prevalent throughout the world and it's not: certain societies permit or even encourage attacks on women and it is naive to suggest that men (especially young men with limited world experience and possibly traumatic upbringings) are going to suddenly understand AND conform to different norms. Of course this is very different from saying that everyone from certain countries is a rapist!

I think this is an interesting discussion. I'm actually of the opinion (perhaps wrongly, still learning) that class analysis is impractical. This would seem to be a case in point, it's of no benefit to label the perpetrators by their lowest common feature, i.e. that they are men, if we are serious about tacking the problem. It's often said that you cannot tell a good man from a bad one etc, however in general there I see on here a mistrust of all men as a logical default position. If this is about self protection, shouldn't we be allowed to also know which kind of men are more likely to be misogynistic than others ? Otherwise what is the point in saying that all men are equally responsible for the culture that leads to these attacks, clearly they are not.

interesting discussion
there was a woman on R4 (I think on the Today programme) who had researched gender based violence in different societies, and she argued that it is not a cultural phenomenon (as a right wing analysis would have it- these primitive foreigners and their violent ways). Rather she said it was a result of gender imbalance, in societies/situations where you have large numbers of young men especialy if they are not 'contained' in families, you get high levels of rape/sexual assualt, and she named India and China as examples. From this you could argue that the tendency to sexual violence is actually endemic but held in check by cultural norms (more or less depending on the culture). The danger of this argument is that it can be read as making women responsible for holding men in check, or for providing them with a legitimate outlet for their sexuality (ie in marriage)
A second aspect of this problem which I haven't seen spelt out is that there is surely a racist undercurrent in the reaction to black/brown on white sexual violence - as in, these xxxxxxx men are polluting 'our' women. This would explain the convenient overlooking of the widespread, day to day sexual violence and general misogyny within majority white society.

I think that's a recognised phenomenon shalli, places that have a big influx of men due to industry, eg oil cities, forestry/mining settlements etc have problems with sexual violence and institutions like brothels & strip clubs springing up.

And likewise, after WW1, it was a time for the advancement of women's rights, partly due to the tragedy of losing much of a generation of young men in battle & skewing the gender demographics.

But how does that explain the sexual assault epidemic in Egypt... presumably there's not a significant gender imbalance there, these young men will either have wives or live at home with their mothers & sisters?

Yes but they are not as much a part of the cultural landscape - being kept out of the public sphere. I agree with that point.

Shallishanti, this article that I also posted on another thread, makes similar points.

By taking only the people who manage to turn up, and not the refugees in most need in a more proactive way (e.g. going and finding them in refugee camps in the region) we are ending up with an unfair 'system' and a demographic imbalance.

I've been called islamophobic, a pearl clutcher etc on threads on MN when I've said I have a problem with the huge overlap between Islam and misogyny. That is not to say that all Muslim men hate women - I come from a Muslim country and my family are Muslim - I know this better than most!

If you import a large volume of young men from cultures where women have the same rights and respect as cattle, you're going to have a problem.

Same as Rotherham - race played a part in choosing the victims - they wouldn't have dreamt of abusing girls in their own community. White, working class girls were dismissed as trash by the abusers AND the authorities supposed to protect them.

As with the trans debate, not hurting the feeling of men massively outweighed the safety of women.

Rotherham - I suspect they wouldn't have sexually abused girls from their own community because those girls would be considered property of their peers. However it's entirely easy to assume that the same type of men are less than stellar husbands and fathers.

Cultural conditioning CANNOT be ignored when looking at violence against women. Whether that is White American frat boys, footballers, wanker bankers in strip clubs, or the horrors in Cologne. Each one of these groups seem to in large groups treat women as less than human.

The mass assaults are utterly terrifying. It should be getting much more coverage than it is. Organised systematic abuse of women on a huge scale taking place in more than one location and it is not headline news because?

That I don't know. Fear of racial violence?

It is a mess in Europe. But I can't help but wonder if the UK coverage of it is quiet to try to avoid even more support for UKIP.

I don't think I've ever seen as many posts supporting UKIP policies as I have in the last couple of weeks.

By posters who would probably reject any idea that they are actually in exact harmony with that party.