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.

the difference could be the application of the term rather than inherent to the term?

Okay, I could see that. The implication that violence is inherent to maleness? Hmm. I guess I don't see it being applied that way - the situations where I see the term used are really quite specific and descriptive.

I also agree with you that the rhetorical power of the term is quite positive. It does make people recoil somewhat, in a way provides a kind of friction. Whereas 'violence against women' tends to feel a lot 'smoother' and people take less notice.

On a related note, 'domestic violence' is a very ideological term that does a lot of work to minimise and trivialise violence. Petition to rename it to 'male terrorism'?

People need to read Demonic Males by Richard Wrangham.

Hmm. I guess I don't see it being applied that way - the situations where I see the term used are really quite specific and descriptive.

In a somewhat parallel way (possibly more of a tangent) I think the views on the use of the term share commonalities with the use of the term itself. People naturally use their language in a way that seems 'right' to them so criticism of that language (being used a different way) can feel like a personal attack.

I wanted to add that I've really found this discussion (both the questions and points made) and its overall evolution really interesting and thank you to everyone who's taking part.

No, i definitely take your point that it could express a meaning or worldview beyond its purely descriptive function. But it is also factual - it is specifically male violence that is a problem. But then using this term does quite often end up with having to justify it - not all men etc. I guess that this does reflect the metonymic aspect of the term.

I would prefer to be factual and descriptive. I guess it's impossible to ever use language in a completely non-ideological way.

I do quite like the term 'male violence against women' (as opposed to simply 'male violence') because I think it is more descriptive, it loses that vagueness that might help suggest it's inherent to maleness, and it sums up the issue neatly.

We have probably gone off on a wild tangent into language and rhetoric, though! I'm interested in these things but probably a bit of a derail from the original question, sorry!

I had a conversation with the same male friend who wanted male violence renamed ‘violent people’ the other day about the word ‘patriarchy’ which he was bristling at every time it came up. We figured out that he was seeing it as a shorthand name for ‘male privilege’ and that it was saying ‘you are having an easy ride, look at you and your easy male life in the patriarchy’ and he said that it was being used by his female friends in a casual way that reinforced this. E.g. ‘why can men go topless in this weather and women can’t? Patriarchy innit’. (He’s in his twenties).

When I explained that I was using it to refer to a structure in society that has men in charge of the wealth and power and that it was an old and well understood term that was being entangled with all this modern talk of identity politics and privilege, he actually agreed with my use.

Feminism isn’t identity politics but it’s being muddled up with it.

Thank you for taking the time to discuss it, queenofknives and apologies on my part too for the derail.

@queenofknives

I do quite like the term 'male violence against women' (as opposed to simply 'male violence') because I think it is more descriptive, it loses that vagueness that might help suggest it's inherent to maleness, and it sums up the issue neatly.

But male violence against men is also a problem for society, not just that which is directed against women. It’s really not equivalent in any way to female aggression or anger. Female violence just isn’t a societal problem.

Thinking about it, while it's true that males are clearly more prone to violence than women, I think the term "male violence" as used in feminism is probably of very limited use.

THe thing is, that while being male is a commonality, there are actually a lot of different causes of it, situations it arises from, and so on.

You can see this if you think about female violence, wich is less common but is certainly something that happens. And being female connects these incidents, and we could make some statistical analysis of what female violence looks like, on a population basis.

But there isn't necessarily a lot that actually connects an abusive mother, a girl in a gang swarming old people in the night, a nurse who secretly euthanises patients, or a woman who joins the infantry.

While violence is a more common response in men, it also comes from very different origins depending on the situation, and has totally different social implications. You can't expect to use the same political or policy solutions with them all. In some cases (man in the military, man depends sheep from wild dogs, etc, you would not want to, either.)

So the problem is really about being concrete - as "male violence" it is an abstraction, a statistical analysis, that doesn't tell us much at all about the concrete situations in which it's instantiated.

For me feminism is one of those things like safeguarding, healthcare or even fitness training.

Left unchecked nature fucks us over in many areas of life. If we want to live long and live well, we have to get that lump checked out, we have to take some exercise every day, we have to be wary of CFs.

I agree, and I think the main thing that prevents women from being fucked over is legislation - my life is different to my great grandmother's life because I have access to contraception, and equalities legislation.

However, the job is never 'done' because the world is always changing. We have seen that the removal of child care facilities in response to Covid has impacted women more than men, mainly because child bearing tends to push women into lower paid and less secure employment so they are more likely to be the partner who gives up paid work.

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

Ideologies tend towards the adoption of totems - which encapsulate the essential ideas or frameworks of the belief system: the working assumptions of that particular analysis of society and human relationships.

For feminism it is 'patriarchal oppression' , 'male violence' and so on.....they are posited as almost as discrete 'things' which exist, ( totems), but which I'd say act as disembodied concepts.

That is not to say that violence isn't a feature throughout human societies through time. It clearly is. And there is much evidence that certain types of aggressive or violent behaviour are more typically, or even almost exclusively displayed by the males of the species.

The crux, for me, is whether you think that aggression and violence can ever be totally eradicated. Thus paving the way for a society in which females do not ever have to suffer from violence or aggression from males again. So, in theory, once 'male violence' is eradicated we can all be truly equal, since it is 'male violence' that is preventing equality.

I'm of the mind that negative human behaviours, including those that are particular to males, will always be with us in some form.......because human beings are creatures of instinct and primitive drive, as well as having the capacity for transcendence, sublimation, transmutation of primitive drives. In fact that is the goal of most religions. to transmute and offer up our base natures to some form of godhead.

I'm of the mind that negative human behaviours, including those that are particular to males, will always be with us in some form

Which is a particularly defeatist attitude that suggests we should just hold our hands up and not bother to even attempt to change things because ‘boys will be boys’,

Violence begets violence. Those who are abused as children are more likely to go on to abuse as adults.

There are many men who are not violent. It is entirely possible to examine the causes of their non-violence and see if there are lessons that can be learned to prevent problems before they begin elsewhere.

We know that channelling anger into more productive activities such as sport can be effective, for example.

@noblegiraffe

I'm of the mind that negative human behaviours, including those that are particular to males, will always be with us in some form

Which is a particularly defeatist attitude that suggests we should just hold our hands up and not bother to even attempt to change things because ‘boys will be boys’,

Violence begets violence. Those who are abused as children are more likely to go on to abuse as adults.

There are many men who are not violent. It is entirely possible to examine the causes of their non-violence and see if there are lessons that can be learned to prevent problems before they begin elsewhere.

We know that channelling anger into more productive activities such as sport can be effective, for example.

There is a huge difference between saying, we can socially modify this behaviour, and, we can extinguish this behaviour.

Saying the latter isn't going to happen isn't defeatist, it's pragmatic and realistic. Policy and practice that recognises innate behaviours will always be a factor tends to be more effective as well, because it can actually address them and their causes.

It's like people who think the solution to workplace sexual harrasment is just to disallow any kind of workplace romance, social touching, etc. yeah, you can do that, but you aren't going to stop people from being sexually and romantically interested in each other, especially if they spend a lot of time at work. And stopping everyone from dating etc takes a huge amount of regulatory effort and is often still not effective - they just do it on the sly. As a solution it simply doesn't account for basic human drives or that fact that for many, sex and relationships are at least as important as employment. You are trying to force people to make choices that are directly against their nature.

Of course once you have a policy like that, and people are flouting it, it becomes very difficult to control a lot of sexual harassment.

So, in theory, once 'male violence' is eradicated we can all be truly equal, since it is 'male violence' that is preventing equality.

You could get rid of male violence tomorrow (and I agree that a quick glance at prisons statistics makes than unlikely), however, you would still be left with the unavoidable fact that mammalian reproduction impacts males and females differently.

If everyone just continues to argue based on their own observations and opinions, there’s little point in the debate.

As I said, there is actual science concerning male violence.

[quote WinterAndRoughWeather]@queenofknives

I do quite like the term 'male violence against women' (as opposed to simply 'male violence') because I think it is more descriptive, it loses that vagueness that might help suggest it's inherent to maleness, and it sums up the issue neatly.

But male violence against men is also a problem for society, not just that which is directed against women. It’s really not equivalent in any way to female aggression or anger. Female violence just isn’t a societal problem.[/quote]
Sure, but for feminists, male violence against women is the issue. We tend to let men deal with their violence against each other.

When I look at other types of systemic oppression you can usually point to a culture or a time in history where/when it doesn't exist

Dunno. I think disabled people have always had a pretty raw deal too.

@WinterAndRoughWeather

If everyone just continues to argue based on their own observations and opinions, there’s little point in the debate.

As I said, there is actual science concerning male violence.

No one is saying it doesn't.

@Justhadathought

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

Ideologies tend towards the adoption of totems - which encapsulate the essential ideas or frameworks of the belief system: the working assumptions of that particular analysis of society and human relationships.

For feminism it is 'patriarchal oppression' , 'male violence' and so on.....they are posited as almost as discrete 'things' which exist, ( totems), but which I'd say act as disembodied concepts.

That is not to say that violence isn't a feature throughout human societies through time. It clearly is. And there is much evidence that certain types of aggressive or violent behaviour are more typically, or even almost exclusively displayed by the males of the species.

The crux, for me, is whether you think that aggression and violence can ever be totally eradicated. Thus paving the way for a society in which females do not ever have to suffer from violence or aggression from males again. So, in theory, once 'male violence' is eradicated we can all be truly equal, since it is 'male violence' that is preventing equality.

I'm of the mind that negative human behaviours, including those that are particular to males, will always be with us in some form.......because human beings are creatures of instinct and primitive drive, as well as having the capacity for transcendence, sublimation, transmutation of primitive drives. In fact that is the goal of most religions. to transmute and offer up our base natures to some form of godhead.

You haven't really answered the question here. Male violence is a discrete thing which exists. I understand that some feminists might use it as a 'disembodied concept' to stand in for a whole view of society/political mindset, but that's not how I'm using it and not how women's refuges, for example, tend to use it. Unlike a concept such as 'patriarchal oppression' it does have a very easy to see material existence. It is a 'thing' and will be a thing no matter what term you use to describe it.

You are treating 'male violence' as a 'disembodied concept' but not explaining how it fits that criteria, and I don't see how it does fit that criteria. It is a very 'embodied' reality, in fact. We could call it something else, such as 'violence committed by males' if the phrase 'male violence' seems too political. But essentially it is a real thing that presents a problem in society. Can it be completely eradicated? Unlikely. But we can certainly improve the regulatory and legislative frameworks to make society safer, and we can certainly disincentivise violence to a greater extent. That is already the trajectory in the UK, for example.

Am I misunderstanding you? It seems like you are saying that 'male violence' is not an actual problem but rather a misguided and ideological worldview of feminists. I don't think you have made a convincing case for that at all.

the problem is really about being concrete - as "male violence" it is an abstraction, a statistical analysis, that doesn't tell us much at all about the concrete situations in which it's instantiated

Ah, okay, I can see that makes sense. So perhaps it is better to talk about 'violence committed by men towards their partners,' 'violence committed by men towards other men in X context' and so on. You are right that they need to be studied as separate phenomena and different solutions and strategies used to combat each. Unless we genuinely are having a discussion (like now) about the general proclivity of males to commit violence, then it is better to be more specific. Thanks - I think that's a really good insight and does answer my question.

@queenofknives

the problem is really about being concrete - as "male violence" it is an abstraction, a statistical analysis, that doesn't tell us much at all about the concrete situations in which it's instantiated

Ah, okay, I can see that makes sense. So perhaps it is better to talk about 'violence committed by men towards their partners,' 'violence committed by men towards other men in X context' and so on. You are right that they need to be studied as separate phenomena and different solutions and strategies used to combat each. Unless we genuinely are having a discussion (like now) about the general proclivity of males to commit violence, then it is better to be more specific. Thanks - I think that's a really good insight and does answer my question.

es, I think that it makes a lot more sense to talk about it in those disrete terms in most cases. Partner violence we could say a lot of useful things about, for example.

There is a connection to a stronger tendency for men to be violent of course. That seems to be biological, and it may simply be a fact that men are always more likely to go off in this way, and certainly that they typically do more damage when it happens. Even if we somehow minimised it to the greatest degree possible, that won't change.

I think it's also an interesting question whether that propensity doesn't exist because it has certain uses. It always seems like a two-edged sword to me. I think about vandals attacking our house once for example, my husbands reaction was to stop them, mine to hide - both have their uses. It was also something you could see clearly when I was in the military - aggression was useful and it was easier to bring out in men. But that was also a danger within the organisation, and in society, that had to be mitigated later on, and that doesn't always work.

It seems to me that human society is always going to have that underlying animal element, we are sexually reproductive with long pregnancies and childhoods, and males tend to be the ones left with the more protective and violent roles.

I think it would be impossible to remove violence from society completely, and even assuming that men and women are equally violent, the people who haven’t gone through Male puberty are always going to be aware that their ability to assert their will through violence is limited.

Very many interesting points made by many posters. I'd like to bring in the concept of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs (for posters unfamiliar with the pyramid, here's a wee linky to a diagram: www.simplypsychology.org/maslow.html). In our society, to attain particularly the top two tiers (of Esteem and Self-Actualisation) requires (often) money, and (especially) time.

There are questions to be asked about what sorts of accomplishments or characteristics will give a person "Esteem" in any given society, and if those sorts of value judgments might, perhaps, be reevaluated. For example, it might be argued (I do not share this point of view) that the question of trans-women in female sport is at best irrelevant, because the whole idea of attaching so much acclaim and monetary potential to who can run the fastest over a short distance is inherently ridiculous, somehow represents "maleness", and should probably be discarded. A problem that quite a few posters have brought up is that as soon as an accomplishment is seen as "female", it goes down in general Esteem. This is a problem!

The other biggy for me is time. To do anything that is challenging well, you need time, to learn, to develop, and to practise. If you want a society where women are able to reach the top in whatever field, you need to have structures that allow them to invest the time. This is (for women and men) more easily done before one has caring or financial responsibilities. Afterwards, it becomes inherently somewhat selfish, because one has to prioritise the art or the science (or the political engagement, etc.) over other commitments at least a good chunk of the time. And historically, this has been much more tolerated of men than of women, and supporting structures (a wife to bear the brunt, a college to live in, etc.) were seen as natural and necessary. So I think that to have equality of opportunity, one would need a society that gives equal opportunity to access support structures, and that is flexible enough in the nature of the support structures to account for differing biological needs.

And just to contradict myself somewhat, I also think that we attach a bit too much "Esteem" to being outstanding in any particular aspect. It should be as acceptable for a male academic (for example) to write a few less papers but to take care of his ageing parents, as for a female academic to spend a bit more time in the lab and expect her children's father to sort out bedtimes.

Like most problems, the right balance in any context is not simple to find, and ideological slogans are a very blunt instrument. In general, I think we've come a long way. I think we're now at a point where further progress requires deep interrogation not just of societies' value systems, but also of practical implementation. It's bound to be a bumpy ride!

Which is a particularly defeatist attitude that suggests we should just hold our hands up and not bother to even attempt to change things because ‘boys will be boys’

That's not what I'm saying. And I'm not defeatist. I'm realistic. Of course violence should be actively discouraged and penalised. But hinging a whole movement on the abolition of something that is fairly intrinsic to particular aspects of human nature seems fairly defeatist in itself to me. A sort of religious quest.

I have grown sons and they have never once assaulted or been violent to anyone ( except maybe towards each other when small). On their behalf I reject suggestions that 'boys will be boys'. Generally, although not exclusively by any means, it tends to be those least educated, more tribalistic, that most easily resort to violence as a first base solution.

I remember in the 1980's the chants of "Take the toys from the boys" ( referring to weapons of mass destruction in that instance - but also to weapons of warfare more generally). At the time it certainly felt like it was speaking to the idealism of living in a peaceful and just society.

I now think there can be a liberation in accepting the limits of human society; in recognising that the dark side of human nature will always be present. That doesn't mean we have to condone it, though.

fMaslow's Hierarchy of Needs (for posters unfamiliar with the pyramid, here's a wee linky to a diagram www.simplypsychology.org/maslow.html). In our society, to attain particularly the top two tiers (of Esteem and Self-Actualisation) requires (often) money, and (especially) time

Yes, when basic survival needs are threatened, or not met, or there is a feeling of having to struggle and fight to survive, then violence is more likely. People brought up in poverty and according to the 'rough and ready' rules of the jungle/the street are more likely to use violence and overt aggression as a tool to assert themselves. Males in particular.