Men bashing

[PirateQueenie]

Hi all,

I don't have a real purpose to this thread other than to just voice my confusion and possibly hear some other opinions.

I would identify as feminist - although for want of a better word, I would rather say I'm an egalitarian. I enjoy reading these threads, and comment on some. But what really disheartens me is all the man-bashing Ive seen. I have a male partner who is my world ♥ wonderful male friends and family members, and when I read some of the things on here I can't help but feel very defensive of the men in my life.

Is this the new wave of feminism? Or am I missing something? When I was growing up (with my mum as an avid feminist), I never heard "men this" or "men that" it was always about how women can strengthen and empower themselves WITHOUT putting men down.

Exactly stuff like this. The "little" things are hugely important. When his friends say stuff like "typical woman" etc my DP will now say "what do you mean by that?"

YY.

It really is the little things. Not laughing at sexist jokes, making sure that everyone contributes in meetings, being a good role model at home, not spending money in ways that harm women. Calling out 'banter' in safe environments at the risk of offence or coming over as a prude.

This is the bare minimum that we should expect from men.

But as I understand it, oppression isn't done for the sake of it. It's done to extract something from the oppressed. So men extract emotional, reproductive and sexual labour from women.

What keeps it going are the gainz.

Which would mean women would have to be motivated by what they can extract from men.

And I don't mean to be detrimental to men, but I'm wondering what those gains would, or could, be?

Don't we just need to use our imagination Datun? Why couldn't we extract the same things from men? Couldn't women have total control of reproductive rights? Couldn't it be men exploited for their labour?

Datun thanks I was at extremes because other posters were suggesting all men are abusers or just not reacting when I asked how my husband should behave to prove he is a decent man. He used to call out stuff like this quite often but as he works in a male dominated industry his circle of friends has decreased over the years because of this and he has become ostracised for his boring attitude. The few female colleagues he has have no such qualms and join in with such talk freely joining in with banter against my husband and his female boss bullies him for being sensitive. But I guess most posters will say that's what women have to put up with everyday so he deserves it?

Once again no one has ever said or suggested "all men".

"But I guess most posters will say that's what women have to put up with everyday so he deserves it?"

It is what women put up with every day, but no, he doesn't deserve it.

It sounds like a hideous work place. He should certainly report the bullying to HR. And maybe it's time for him to look for another job?

But I guess most posters will say that's what women have to put up with everyday so he deserves it?

He certainly doesn't deserve it. But it's true that many women do have to put up with that sort of thing. They don't deserve it either.

Cross posted Bertrand.

It also rather give the lie to NAMALT-if all men in his work place ALT apart from one.

It also rather give the lie to NAMALT-if all men in his work place ALT apart from one.

Exactly Bertrand That hateful acronym needs replacing. How about TOMOMALT? The overwhelming majority of men are like that.

Princess-I'm not quite sure what you're asking for. Sympathy and support for your husband? Absolutely. Acknowledgement that it's difficult to stand up as a feminist ally? Absolutely again. Realization that most men are more than happy with the status quo and will gang up on anyone who rocks the boat? Yep-sadly that too.

*Don't we just need to use our imagination Datun? Why couldn't we extract the same things from men? Couldn't women have total Control over reproductive rights? Couldn't it be men be exploited for their labour?

Yes, I see what you mean Cruella.
But control over reproduction rights is not taking something from anyone. Except the right, if you see what I mean. And men are already exploited by other men for their labour.

It was a post on Facebook that got me thinking about this. I don't know if it is a part of feminism that is widely accepted, though.

The poster obviously knew a lot about the subject, he (I think it was a man) pointed out that the reason why black people were oppressed is so that white people could extract something from them (labour for jobs the whites didn't want to do).

He used a couple of other examples too. But his basic premise was that power is only ever exercised as a means of extraction.

It got me thinking. Because if we accept that people will exploit power for the sake of it, would we not be seeing more of a hierarchy filtering through all aspects of society?

Within each strata, there would be a more recognised structure of power?

The questions is often asked 'why patriarchy?' And the answer is because they can. This particular poster made the reasons for seizing power very clear.

And yes, I could use my imagination over how a matriarchy might extract something from men, but it's not a clearly defined goal. So I wondered if it was because we don't need to extract anything (despite acknowledging that there are a lot of things we could extract).

That's not to say we don't need to redress the balance of something being extracted from us.

I suppose I'm thinking of say a women only commune. You wouldn't need men for anything, except to reproduce. Since you don't need power over men in order to get them to reproduce with you you wouldn't need to enslave or oppress them.

Whereas I can't imagine a male only commune thinking along those lines at all. Because they need women. For sex and feeding children.

I think the example Princess has given of her dp' s workplace is an interesting one. It highlights the fact that there really is nothing in it for men to be true feminist allies, except the satisfaction of having done the right thing. Which is not really an attractive trade off for having ceded some of your power and control. I think that's one of th reasons non feminist women get so angry with feminist women-we are asking them to give up the comfort of accepting the status quo that thy feel they are doing nicely in, and and do and think difficult things. The fury that the use of the "handmaiden" description evokes really highlights this.

It's an interesting thing to think about Datun. I guess I don't really agree with that Facebook poster that power is only ever used as a means to extract something. Rather I think that extracting something is one of the ways for which power is exercised.

In terms of a matriarchy we may not want to extract labour from men but what if say we agreed that because of the danger of male violence then male freedom of movement should be drastically curtailed. Say men weren't allowed out after dark. We're not extracting anything from them.

Cruella

Yes I understand what you're saying. But you're still operating from within a patriarchy. The patriarchy determines that men are violent as a means oppress. Curtailing their freedom is simply reacting to the patriarchy. It wouldn't be included under a matriarchy, as by definition there would be no need to react to oppression.

I haven't heard of this, let's call it 'extraction gains' premise before either. But it was powerfully persuasive.

I'll see if I can find the comment and cut and paste it.

I am a long-term reader of this board, but I very rarely post here. I read it because I am interested in what can be done about the various issues identified upthread. In this thread, it seems to me that the posters arguing against the grain are trying to ask exactly what it is that willing men should be doing to prevent these problems. The challenge is that there are a range of issues and the debate flicks from one to another, making it hard to build any sort of consensus. But to focus on one of the biggest issues (as Bertrand Russell suggested upthread) - domestic violence - what can men do?

Two women a week are killed by their partners. It's an appalling statistic and one that any rational person would want to lower. 104 extremely dangerous males kill their partner each year. Over an adult lifetime, that is around 6,000 men you could meet. But it is out of an adult male population of over 25 million (and over a lifetime we would encounter double that number, so 50 million males in total). The chances of any of us meeting one of them is very very small.

85,000 women and 12,000 men are raped each year. Let's assume that none of the perpetrators commit more than one rape. That makes roughly 100,000 male perpetrators each year. Using the same logic of an adult lifetime, that would be 6 million men we could encounter. Now we are talking big numbers; using the same logic above, that is over 10% of the adult male population we encounter in our lifetime.

If we broaden the statistics to include all victims of domestic violence (where perpetrators can be both male and female, though obviously still more male than female) the proportion of victims in the UK are 27% of women and 13% of men (data from ONS).

So statistically, most of us will meet a perpetrator of some form of domestic violence before they commit their crime. But how do we know who they are and what could we do about it? No one boasts about physically assaulting their partner, or at least I have never come across this. In my experience no one even minimises such behaviour in conversation; it just doesn't come up. I agree everyone should tackle any form of minimisation when it arises in conversation. I just don't think it happens that often. As a man, the tone of conversations I have with males does not change when a woman joins the group. So I struggle to believe there is a solution to the problems of domestic violence through changing conversation. And I think that is why some of the challenging posters coming on this thread are struggling to understand what individual (non-perpetrating) men are supposed to do. It isn't a question of 'what's in it for us?', it's that the men engaging in this debate feel no more empowered to reduce domestic violence than the women posting here.

Noneedforasitter

Interesting post. And thanks for breaking down statistics.

I think you are still operating from a position that there are 'some men' who are just bastards. And it's difficult to stop them because how do you know?

The feminist perspective is that men are conditioned to be violent from birth. They are conditioned to see women as second-class.

Whereas nearly all men would never abuse that attitude, there are those who will. If you can't identify the perpetrators, you could change the attitude instead.

Noneed- if you're referring to my list of th ings I said men could do immediately I think I said "Stop hitting women". If, as I assume you don't, that's one you can tick off at once! I'm not saying, obviously, that conversation about domestic violence will stop it, but we need to think very carefully about the language we use-the language of consent and of victim blaming. The undercurrent of "she must have done something to provoke him" The feeling that women are possessions and men have a right to do what they want with their possessions. Does that make sense? Obviously, this sort of stuff is very rarely overt. But it is a constant undercurrent in our society.

Datun

Yes I see how that makes sense from your perspective that it's patriarchy that determines male violence. I'm much less sure about that. It makes more sense to me to see patriarchy as the expression of male violence. So a matriarchy wouldn't eliminate male violence it would just enable women to control it.

Would be interesting to read the post of you can find it. Thanks!

PrincessLeia80
But I guess most posters will say that's what women have to put up with everyday so he deserves it?

In that case you have a low opinion of women on this forum, and you havent listened to anything thats been said.
Perhaps you could get your clued up husband to explain to you why that comment is so offensive. He probably has a pretty clear analysis of why some women act like one of the lads to fit in as well.

CruellaDeVilsEvilSister

I've had a look, but it was a comment on a Facebook page that has since moved on.

I'll keep looking, though. It was about trans. He was very clear how gender is purposely assigned in order to keep men on top and women on the bottom.

He didn't even have to align any of it with transgenderism. It was about patriarchy.

I've gone back over several of his comments because they were so interesting. As soon as I find the one that explained it, i'll post it.

This is what I think regarding relationships with men who tend towards strop. Most women minimise it in order to keep the peace because they know that the person who is doing it is stronger than them and that it might well escalate. They accept 'roles' because it's not easy to upset the apple cart. They clean the toilet because it becomes their job within the household. It becomes such a habit that it becomes part of their lifestyle and they meld into the pacifier role. For protection for them and their children. It becomes normal and so therefore no domestic violence exists.

For me, it's more than that. I think there's a massive hangover from the days of the so called housewife of the 1950s, and many women who have been married to men or in relationships who fundamentally don't respect them, but hold the earning power in the household feel that cleaning the toilet etc are ways of 'earning their keep'. As a wise older feminist I now realise how very wrong I was.

who fundamentally don't respect them

I think that this is key. 'Women's work' is often belittled and disrespected by men. Sometimes by women too.