Feminism, whats the goal?

[UglyGlassVase]

How can we ever be in a place were we aren't reliant on men?

We have the babies.

We are physically weaker.

How do we get around that? What's the goal?

I'm feeling very despondent, the more I think about it the more bleak it seems.

You agree that male violence is an issue but you don’t want it called male violence? What then?

It’s a very different term to white privilege which is a rather nebulous concept.

You agree that male violence is an issue but you don’t want it called male violence? What then? It’s a very different term to white privilege which is a rather nebulous concept

I think they are two sides of a similar coin.

The adoption and rigid application of structural ideologies results in terms such as 'Cis privilege' 'Male Violence, 'White Privilege'. When you cease to frame the world in a particular way, your view of it changes.

Don’t be daft. You admit that there is an issue that the vast majority of violent crimes are committed by men (and not just crimes but violence in general). This is a real problem that needs to be named so that it can be tackled.

White privilege or cis privilege or able privilege or whatever is a way of trying to get people to think about disadvantages and barriers faced by other groups of people instead of calling it, say, ‘black disadvantage’ and making it a problem for the other group that the first group can simply ignore. OR it can be seen as a way for woke people to self-flagellate and make something about them and do nothing to address disadvantage but make sad YouTube videos where they tearfully acknowledge their privilege and claim to be terrible people for having it.

Entirely different concepts.

I think that rhetorically it is useful to specify the 'male' in male violence, because otherwise you have 'violence against women', a term in which the perpetrator's role is invisibilised. I don't think it suggests all males are violent but it does shift the focus from 'women' to 'males' - which I think is a useful rhetorical strategy to support campaigns against such violence.

I wouldn't lump it in with terms like white or male privilege. I think the intersectional/privilege model of looking at the world is the most damaging thing to ever happen to civil rights movements, especially to feminism.

And the thing with ‘violence against women’ is that it ignores that men are frequently violent against other men too.

The common factor is the sex of the perpetrator.

I had a man ask me once if I could talk about ‘violent people’ instead of ‘violent men’ as talking about male violence stigmatised men. Because that’s the real problem?!

Don’t be daft. You admit that there is an issue that the vast majority of violent crimes are committed by men (and not just crimes but violence in general). This is a real problem that needs to be named so that it can be tackled

Is it really necessary that you resort to calling people 'daft' because they don't view things in the exact way you think they should?

You cannot see a framework when you are thinking and operating and based on its precepts. In recent times I've been shaken free of various fixed positions. Partly as a result of all of the identity wars surrounding Brexit; partly because of what has been happening with Momentum/ the Labour party; partly because of the rise of identity politics, and in particular gender ideology; but also because iIve been posting and reading on here for a couple of years and can recognise that feminism also channels its conceptions of the world through a very particular framework, along with adherence to its very own articles of faith.

Like any other political movement feminism is seeking a better world, one that never quite arrives. Human relations are complex, and there is no no one right solution or one right way of understanding human relations.

Long post, Just that does nothing to explain why the term ‘male violence’ is in any way similar to ‘white privilege’.

'Male violence' is factual, isn't it? I don't see it as ideological. It reflects the statistical data. Females can be violent but generally speaking are not the problem. I don't see anything wrong or ideological about using a factual, descriptive term.

I think I probably agree with you, Just, that there are ideological frameworks within feminism that we may unthinkingly default to and which are not useful or reflective of reality. 'Male privilege' I think is one that I would question, for example. So I'm interested in why you see 'male violence' as an ideological statement rather than a factual description.

In recent times I've been shaken free of various fixed positions.
Thats an illusion, you have moved to a new fixed position, which is 'I am anti ideology', and you frequently dismiss discussions because you view them as based on ideology, not fact.

You accept 'men are more violent than women' as a fact but object to the descriptive term 'male violence' as you see it as an ideology, not a descriptor.
What term would you use instead? How should women talk about male pattern violence?

It’s a very different term to white privilege which is a rather nebulous concept

I wonder if someone will be along fairly soon to tell you that whilst you may think that white privilege is " just a nebulous concept" is because you benefit from it. That's because what you preach is just " White Feminism"

'Male violence' is no more or less nebulous than 'White privilege' or 'White feminism' - as each term seeks to define and encapsulate what they think the main issue is; the issue that prevents realisation of 'true equality'.

Male violence is one of the barriers to true equality.

How is 'male violence' nebulous? It's pretty well documented as a real, material phenomenon, isn't it? Two women a week die at the hands of males - is there a better description than 'male violence' for this? What ideological work do you think the term 'male violence' is doing? I am genuinely struggling to understand your point of view.

So I'm interested in why you see 'male violence' as an ideological statement rather than a factual description

Because it is an ideological framing and naming of what is considered to be the main issue; the thing to be overcome. Ideological frameworks tend to rely on an essential opposition. Males, in feminism, are framed as 'the problem' per se.

....as 'white culture' is framed as the main stumbling block for the liberation of black people.

No, male violence is framed as the problem. Women have to live their lives around managing a risk they have no control over.

But what makes it ideological? You haven't really explained that and that's the bit I don't understand. Can you give an example or explain it in a different way?

But 'white culture' IS nebulous and arguably not even a thing. 'Male violence' is statistically and legally and and scientifically and historically extremely well documented. We understand it in many different aspects and can examine it through a number of different lenses. What makes it the same as 'white culture'?

Males, in feminism, are framed as 'the problem' per se.

Er, you admit that male violence is a problem. But you don’t want to admit that it’s a problem because it contains the word ‘male’ and naming sexes is an issue?

Read Invisible Women and then come back to me and talk about the importance of accurately recording issues by sex so that problems can be identified and tackled....

I’m a teacher. We often look at how different subgroups behave/achieve so that interventions can be targeted. It’s a better use of resources than trying to pretend that everyone is the same.

'Male violence' is no more or less nebulous than 'White privilege' or 'White feminism'
It is much less nebulous than either of those other terms.
We have crimes that define violence in law, and we can show that 98% of those crimes are committed by males. Therefore male violence is a descriptive summary.

"Privilege" is not an equivalent term to "violence".
One is positive, one is negative.
One is a quality someone possesses through no choice of their own, the other is an action someone can choose to inflict on others.

It's a false equivalence and I don't know why it benefits you to deny male violence is a problem.

Not to mention that many of us have been victims of male violence. I am not talking about words or looks or newspaper articles or a feeling, but actual punches and kicks: violence. I don't understand how talking about/campaigning against that is the same thing as creating a nebulous ideological opponent in the form of 'white culture'. I would agree if people were saying 'male culture' or 'maleness' was the problem. But 'male violence' refers to an actual concrete thing. Doesn't it?

Equal representation in politics and power - it should be mandatory to have 50% of senior management, board representation and political postions held by females. Everything else will fall in place if this were law. But theyll never take their grubby mitts off that prize.

In France, employers are legally obliged to hold your job open for you for three years after birth (unpaid). That would also make a huge difference to women I think, allowing you step back in at the same place you stepped off.

Male violence is a red herring. It is what it is. You can no more stop some males from being violent than stop a lion eating prey. More important is that is well recognised, well publicised and appropriately legislated and punished. And females have to accept it is a reality of life, just like living around any other kind of potential predator, we need to use our judgement, educate our young and protect the weak.

But what makes it ideological?

I don't wish to speak on behalf of Thelnebriati (or anyone else) but could I propose that the difference could be the application of the term rather than inherent to the term? I think the distinction is in culpability. As another example, someone could quite neutrally talk about 'Islamic Terrorism' in terms of how to combat it, while another person might use it in accusatory terms to claim that terrorism is inherent in Islam and/or that its adherents are collectively responsible for acts of terror committed in its name.

I would also like to suggest that men who recoil at the term is, in a way, somewhat positive. I think it shows that those who recoil do disapprove of other men being violent.

Yes male violence is a real, concrete thing and no, I don’t believe it’s either an unstoppable force or something we just have to put up with and protect ourselves from.

Society can and should change to the point where male violence is hugely diminished.