The cognitive dissonance from 'TWAW' women

[CheeryTreeBlossom]

I've seen a few things today on social media which got me thinking: How do "liberal" feminists square up the argument that being a women is a feeling vs the experience we all know?

1. The awful disappearance of Sarah Everard has led to an outpouring on twitter of women highlighting how they are essentially bound by a curfew all the time (and not just when the police "helpfully suggest" it) and feel the fear of being followed/harassed/assaulted by men in public constantly.

2. Kamala Harris posted a video on Instagram about the 2.5million women how have left the workforce in the US (similar stats on Guardian about the UK) and it's driven by women being in lower paid work and not having access to childcare when schools close.

3. This scene from Fleabag appeared on my Facebook feed where Kristin Scott Thomas gives a powerful speech about how women are constantly affected by their bodies through the start of menstruation to menopause. Lots of positive articles from the time it aired:
   www.refinery29.com/en-gb/fleabag-season-2-episode-3

And yet these same women would call others bigots for saying biology matters and instead that feelings are more important to being a woman than anything else?
That to dislike finding myself in an enclosed public space with someone visibly male is phobic, and that our reproductively system has a huge impact in our lives and why women are still discriminated against?

Argh. I'm just sick of being the only one in my friends group that seems to see the hypocrisy.
They say JKR is a nasty transphobe but equally complain about the patriarchy and how childcare costs put women put of work

@RootyT00t

I'm sure il get flamed for this, but men are more likely to be victims of random street violence. Women are far more likely to be murdered or abused in their own home by someone they know. So if we take the narrative that we trust our partner and husband's, why is it that we fear men and transwomen ?

No flaming, Rooty! If men are victims of random violence, then that's a separate issue, and of course one that we can talk about, and one that I care about. But this is a feminist board and we are talking about women's rights.

The point is not so much that, as a woman, I am afraid of being assaulted by men. The point is that I am much more afraid of being assaulted by a man than I am a woman, and the evidence tells me I'm right to think that way. As a woman, it's (some) men that are a threat to me statistically, not women. When I am vulnerable e.g. I am in a state of undress, I am sleeping, I want to be in a single sex space.

I don't have a problem with that, at all. But the argument calls down. Any time I say it's not all men, people say well we know that. We know it isn't. We have husband's and friends and parents and family members and bosses etc etc.

But sadly, it is FAR more likely that one of these people are behind the ststistic than a random man in the street. So why the focus on a stranger who may or may not be trans?

For clarity, I should probably have said "When I am vulnerable, e.g. I am in a state of undress, I am sleeping , and I am in a place where there are strangers I want to be in a single sex space."

Fair point Rooty I think they are two separate issues.

1. We know that women get assaulted by men they don't know. When we talk about this issue, that's where concerns over trans women come in.
2. You are quite right that we should give proper weight to the problem of DV and women being assaulted or murdered by their partners.

Both are important issues, and it's not a case of picking which is the correct one to be concerned about. (Not suggesting that's what you're saying!)

@BlueBrush

Fair point Rooty I think they are two separate issues.

1. We know that women get assaulted by men they don't know. When we talk about this issue, that's where concerns over trans women come in.
2. You are quite right that we should give proper weight to the problem of DV and women being assaulted or murdered by their partners.

Both are important issues, and it's not a case of picking which is the correct one to be concerned about. (Not suggesting that's what you're saying!)

No, I'm not.

It takes me back to the same stance I have on all of these issues.

It shouldn't be and/or.

We shouldn't champion women or men.

We shouldn't champion women or transwomen.

We should hold the bad of any group accountable and protect the good , but without penalising the good of another group.

All of this 'enough is enough, I say no,' men have had the authority for years, let them sort themselves out etc etc , doesn't help.

As I always think, this whole campaign is on expecting men to support us by changing their behaviour, speaking up against other men, stopping the lad chat. Fine. But why should they? And before anyone gets out the card about oh we should be nicer to them, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that for anything to work, people need to be in unison. Not us bullying men into acting by holding them responsible for other men's actions.

I think I am a bit thick here... do I understand the line of argument correctly...?

It is a bigger risk (statistically) that my husband will kill me than a stranger, so I shouldn’t worry walking home alone in the dark?

It is not all men who are violent, so we should abstain from making any assumptions on violence from males even though the data statistically is quite overwhelming that males commit much more violence than females? Because that is mean to men?

And trans women are women so they are magically (in addition to being very vulnerable) on the same rate of committing crimes as women? Even though about 50% of trans women in prisons appear to have committed sexual offences?

Surely that is not what is being argued here, or...?

@WoolOfBat

I think I am a bit thick here... do I understand the line of argument correctly...?

It is a bigger risk (statistically) that my husband will kill me than a stranger, so I shouldn’t worry walking home alone in the dark?

It is not all men who are violent, so we should abstain from making any assumptions on violence from males even though the data statistically is quite overwhelming that males commit much more violence than females? Because that is mean to men?

And trans women are women so they are magically (in addition to being very vulnerable) on the same rate of committing crimes as women? Even though about 50% of trans women in prisons appear to have committed sexual offences?

Surely that is not what is being argued here, or...?

No, that's nothing like what I said.

It is not all men who are violent, so we should abstain from making any assumptions on violence from males even though the data statistically is quite overwhelming that males commit much more violence than females? Because that is mean to men?

And trans women are women so they are magically (in addition to being very vulnerable) on the same rate of committing crimes as women? Even though about 50% of trans women in prisons appear to have committed sexual offences?

Surely that is not what is being argued here, or...?

I think there is a fair bit of that going on here. This is arguably not the same as the subject of this thread though.

This is about the cognitive dissonance when self-proclaimed feminist women are criticising all men and campaigning against MVAWG but are fully paid up TWAW supporters/activists.

It's interesting to consider how these two views can simultaneously be held and at what point a male moves from being considered a risk to women, or someone who needs to be "called out" to someone who needs to be cosseted and supported at all times, and is someone who women's and girls' sex based rights should come second for. Even though they recognise that being female means something.

But we can't win here , Eresh. You are asking us to give up our beliefs on TWAW because we don't agree with the way women are treated and that isn't fair.

Rooty
I think there are a number of different ideas to unpick.

Firstly, single sex spaces are partly about preventing known risks i.e. women sometimes need safety from a subset of men would behave inappropriately. This doesn’t make women safe outside of those spaces but it removes a risk. Just because people crash cars when they are sober doesn’t make banning drink driving a bad idea; it’s a known risk.

Secondly, why should men help. 1. because they are decent human beings. 2. because it benefits the people they care about (most men will have at least one significant female in their life). 3 because toxic masculinity is harming men - shit like “man up”, proper men don’t show feelings etc is driving a MH crisis for men - I believe the negative behaviour towards women is part of that masculine performance that traps men too.

@ChazsBrilliantAttitude

Rooty I think there are a number of different ideas to unpick.

Firstly, single sex spaces are partly about preventing known risks i.e. women sometimes need safety from a subset of men would behave inappropriately. This doesn’t make women safe outside of those spaces but it removes a risk. Just because people crash cars when they are sober doesn’t make banning drink driving a bad idea; it’s a known risk.

Secondly, why should men help. 1. because they are decent human beings. 2. because it benefits the people they care about (most men will have at least one significant female in their life). 3 because toxic masculinity is harming men - shit like “man up”, proper men don’t show feelings etc is driving a MH crisis for men - I believe the negative behaviour towards women is part of that masculine performance that traps men too.

I don't disagree.

But if I ask the question about male mental health or abused men on here, you can guarantee il be called a man's slave and told boo boo poor menz, let them fight their own battles as they have more power than us.

Why can't we work together?

Rooty
I don’t think that post is fair. This is a specific section on women’s rights I think women are entitled to centre the conversations on women here. I have seen plenty of posters on other sections sympathetically deal with those issues.

@ChazsBrilliantAttitude

Rooty I don’t think that post is fair. This is a specific section on women’s rights I think women are entitled to centre the conversations on women here. I have seen plenty of posters on other sections sympathetically deal with those issues.

The conversation is on women's rights.

The disagreement we are having is how to achieve it.

Gender is not more complicated than vocation to religious orders. As you would know if you had met any real priests, monks or nuns. It is who they are. Their reality. Their lived experience. It's not a choice for most. But it doesn't mean they are exempt from safeguarding requirements if they have access to the vulnerable

But we can't win here , Eresh. You are asking us to give up our beliefs on TWAW because we don't agree with the way women are treated and that isn't fair.

You're not one of the women in the OP, you are not calling out men and campaigning against MVAWG. You are an "equalist", who says WATM to everything women say about male privilege and male violence, and I wouldn't call your beliefs feminist.

This is specifically about women who have cognitive dissonance between their perception of reality for female people as an oppressed class and the TWAW mantra they mouth.

There are lots of other threads where your own TWAW thoughts are relevant. This is quite a specific phenomenon under discussion and the thread is being derailed to centre on your views. Can I ask that you don't, please? If we are going to respect each other?

But if I ask the question about male mental health or abused men on here, you can guarantee il be called a man's slave and told boo boo poor menz, let them fight their own battles as they have more power than us.

You can ask it in AIBU or Chat or In the News or anywhere else. It just has nothing to do with feminism. It's OK to have a movement that focuses on women and girls and not any kind of male people. Really it is.

I find this absolutely baffling op. The vast majority of the time we all use women in the usual way, but as soon as a tw appears everyone pretends they were including them all along. Yes, how many trans women are included in that 97% stat of women who have been harassed? I'll bet zero. But if it was challenged history would be rewritten and all of a sudden tw would be part of it

@Ereshkigalangcleg

But we can't win here , Eresh. You are asking us to give up our beliefs on TWAW because we don't agree with the way women are treated and that isn't fair.

You're not one of the women in the OP, you are not calling out men and campaigning against MVAWG. You are an "equalist", who says WATM to everything women say about male privilege and male violence, and I wouldn't call your beliefs feminist.

This is specifically about women who have cognitive dissonance between their perception of reality for female people as an oppressed class and the TWAW mantra they mouth.

There are lots of other threads where your own TWAW thoughts are relevant. This is quite a specific phenomenon under discussion and the thread is being derailed to centre on your views. Can I ask that you don't, please? If we are going to respect each other?

In other words, as is usual practice, can we have an echo chamber.

No problem.

The point is not so much that, as a woman, I am afraid of being assaulted by men. The point is that I am much more afraid of being assaulted by a man than I am a woman, and the evidence tells me I'm right to think that way. As a woman, it's (some) men that are a threat to me statistically, not women. When I am vulnerable e.g. I am in a state of undress, I am sleeping, I want to be in a single sex space.

Yes exactly. And the women who parrot TWAW but are tweeting about male violence in the last few days also feel like this. Which is why it's striking that they call us bigots for not exempting a small group of males from this just on their say so.

In other words, as is usual practice, can we have an echo chamber.

No, can we focus on the actual topic of the thread. Do you have anything to contribute in a more general sense? Why do you think this cognitive dissonance exists?

@Ereshkigalangcleg

In other words, as is usual practice, can we have an echo chamber.

No, can we focus on the actual topic of the thread. Do you have anything to contribute in a more general sense? Why do you think this cognitive dissonance exists?

Because it is possible to believe that TWAW but also be appalled by male violence?

@Gerla

which to be clear, IMO, is predatory men taking advantage of relaxed safeguarding I see this opinion expressed a lot and I find it troubling. I don't think TW are predators but I do think they are human and just as likely to commit a crime as anyone else! It seems that we are always having to pit them in a separate category that can't be criticized. I don't think that helps anyone.

I agree with this. I see it all the time in real life and also here in FWR . “Genuine” and “fake” trans, as though the former category never commits a crime.

Hang on. If they are just as likely to commit a crime as anyone else, can't we just equate them to women?

Looking at reasons and motivations for crime, are any of them biological?

Violence against women is the central issue here. Violence against TWs is another issue, not unimportant, just not what this thread is about.

@goodwolf

Violence against women is the central issue here. Violence against TWs is another issue, not unimportant, just not what this thread is about.

How many of these men who attack in broad daylight do you think wait to see if it's a trans or biological woman?