From today’s Observer:
Plan to warn women of violent men
Women who fall in love with violent men would be warned off the relationship by police, under controversial new proposals to be published by the home secretary tomorrow.
Jacqui Smith told the Observer that serial perpetrators of domestic violence could be monitored in a similar way to paedophiles, allowing police to identify and alert any new partners to their records in the hope of preventing future abuse. Wife batterers also face new conditions restricting their movements or habits, such as forcing them to seek treatment for drink problems, under a wide-ranging review of violence against women…….”
It will be interesting to see the reactions to these proposals once they’re formally announced tomorrow, but I’ve no doubt they’ll be widely condemned by some, and picked over and questioned endlessly by those who, for whatever dubious reasons, are only interested in minimising the importance of, and disputing the prevalence of, violence against women in this country.
In fact, I can already predict some of the responses we’re likely to hear over the next few days:
“Will men who fall in love with violent women also be warned by the police?”
“Is there going to be a review of violence against men?”
“Where’s the funding for men’s shelters?”
“The statistics are wrong: this isn’t Iran/the Congo/insert country of choice, gender specific violence is not an issue in the UK”
“What about the menz?”
And so on and so forth interminably and ad nauseum until women are once again entirely erased from the debate. Apart from straw women that is, you know the ones, the ones who go around beating up and raping men and who have made nationwide services for male victims an absolute necessity, even more of a necessity than services for female victims (who don’t actually exist ‘cos violence against women is all a myth perpetuated by the rad-fem-man-hating femnazis who have far too much influence over this govt)
Cynical? What me?
My only worry so far about these proposals is this: if a woman has been warned by the police about her new bloke’s previous violent behaviour towards women, but she goes ahead and stays with him anyway against all their advice, and she ends up getting battered by him, isn’t this going to prompt even more obnoxious victim blaming than we already get? I can just hear the judges and the defence lawyers now:
“But Ms X, you can’t say you weren’t warned that Mr Y was a violent, abusive drunken bastard. You’ve only yourself to blame you know.”
Hmmmm.
It seems a bit bizarre. I’d quite like to know for instance if a violent man was living next door to me (by some method other than having to call the police at 3 in the morning).
Can’t we just tattoo ‘dangerous bastard’ on their foreheads? Cheaper and simpler…..
If it’s for ‘persistent offenders’ then yeah, I think it’s a good idea.
Oh Lardy, has Liberal Conspiracy picked up on this yet? I’m frightened to look.
Here’s a thought, how about locking up the serial violent offenders?
Because the logistics of “warning future partners” is completely ridiculous.
But anyway, I do await more info.
Of course on the radio it is mentioned about “violent men and women” like it is some sort of 50-50 deal. Yeah, right.
Love this – exactly what I was thinking. If these guys are a danger to women – what are they doing on the streets?
I am with Polly on this one, lets get them tattooed across the forehead so there can be no confusion about their attitude towards women.
I am also quite keen on having them micro chipped which would allow tracking of their whereabouts at all times. Behave like an animal, get treated like one!
Astounded at today’s SUN where the survey reveals one in five yes one in five agree that it’s okay for a man to hit a woman
As an ex victim of domestic violence this leaves me speechless
what can be done to change such pre historic attitudes
I agree Judith, the survey results are shocking.
As for the Sun’s coverage of it. On the one hand I was pleased to see them come out and make clear they thought the responses were shocking, but on the other – I’m so not impressed with the misogynist captions they’ve used on the graphic:
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article2305976.ece
Yeah yeah, I know, it’s the Sun, what did I expect…..
You’re right. We are dealing with dinosaurs.
The Mirror’s coverage is even worse. The first couple of paragraphs, especially. Technically true, from the reported stats, but a weird spin to put on things.
Is a summary of the survey available online?
Thanks for that link damagedoor:
“Shocking poll reveals one in five women accept violence from men”
Bloody hell.
I can’t find the survey online- I’ve got a feeling it’s not going to be officially released until later today.
damagedoor – here you go, the survey results:
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/documents/violence-against-women-poll?view=Binary
Thanks so much for sourcing these results. Unbelievable is not the word.
The govt has now announced the new violence against women consultation – https://nds.coi.gov.uk/Content/Detail.asp?ReleaseID=394889&NewsAreaID=2
Thanks for the link, Cath.
The figures are shockingly high, especially the attitudes to rape expressed in the last few pages. There are nuances to ‘partly responsible’ (which I don’t agree with, but can see how they might skew responses), but saying ‘should be held responsible’ is a definitive response and the figures are absolutely appalling.
The figures for the acceptability of violence are equally bad. I’m also surprised by the differences between the responses, which seem inconsistent: the underlying attitude expressed in the inconsistency is disturbing in itself. Anyway – thanks for the source.
Thank you Cath for this link. It’s all so appalling. How do we begin to change attitudes?
I did have a thought that the floated new measures of a register for persistent DV offenders could backfire against women. If a male is on the register, and a woman gets involved with him anyway, the police/CPS attitude could be one of “well, we told you, bad luck”, putting the onus on the victim for making ‘bad choices’.
This is not unlikely, especially given the attitudes revealed in the latest (and previous) surveys – for example the ‘flirting’ being seen as fault for rape.
The reason I bring up the example of a woman getting involved with a known repeat offender is that abusers lie. They will say things like “I have changed” or will excuse the previous violence and say “well, she was a right b*tch and nagged me, it just got out of hand, you aren’t like her…” (this is a very common tactic of abusers), and the new victim will believe that either he has changed, or there was some sort of misunderstanding.
The above scenario is EXACTLY how women get trapped into these abusive relationships. No abuser goes “hi, mind if I slap you around a bit?” and most will only start the abusive behaviour once the relationship has reached some sort of commitment phase. A lot of first time DV occurence happens during pregnancy or after the birth of first child.
The Home Office DV mini site:
crimereduction.homeoffice.gov.uk/dv/dv01.htm
There are already quite a number of ways that they can keep an abuser out of the house (the DV Crime & Victims Act 2004). The best part of that was that the police could actually decide to press charges and arrest, even if the victim was unwilling to do so.
Already, as part of bail conditions, the police can attach a no-contact order, without the victim having to confront the abuser in court.
Reasonable measures are available, the problem is that the police do not use them sufficiently. Primarily because they won’t believe victims and take victims seriously enough. That is where the system breaks down.
stormy –
I hope you don’t mind me addessing you directly (I’m sorry – genuinely – if you do), but I think you’re right in almost everything you say. (My only query is about abusers “lying”, as I think it’s more psychologically complicated than that).
What exactly are women (or men, fwiw) supposed to do with this information after the police have told them? It seems like handing on a responsibility of care. The question should really be: “If they’re dangerous enough for you to need to tell me this, then surely they’re dangerous enough for you to do something about it?”
damagedoor
Spot on!
DD, ah! I knew you could make sense one day.
But yeah, that’s exactly what we said in the first instant; if these a’holes are so ‘repeat offenders’ and dangerous to women, WTF haven’t you locked them up? (but I do like the tattoo idea too…)
You are right about handing on the responsibility of care (my second concern after I had thought about it). This is basically just shoving the burden onto the women, with the very real possibility that the police will say the “well, you made your bed … after we told you …”
As for the lying part. Oh yes they do. Manipulation is a key attribute of an abuser, it is almost like they go through the same training school. Read: Lundy Bancroft Why does he do that?. Bancroft is one of the most experienced and leaders in the field of treating abusive men. Round off your reading in narcissim and pyschopathy, then you will understand.
The big problem I have with the police is that they are undertrained in this area (it is a small part of their basic training). Yet correctly identifying and analysing a DV situation takes a solid grounding. Compounded by the fact that most of the officers are male, with a similar attitude towards women. Police and the military actually have twice the DV abuser rate of the regular population. The fox guarding the henhouse.
“Jacqui Smith told the Observer that serial perpetrators of domestic violence could be monitored in a similar way to paedophiles”
So the FBI will be doing it?
Pedophiles flock to Britain because it is a safe haven.
Jacqui Smith talks rubbish, nothing she says can be relied upon, she has a fantasy ministry.
Harriet Harman ( on the other hand) had real pedophile policies, unfortunately, the policies didn’t exactly reflect negatively on them.
“The spokesman added: “PIE had been excluded from the NCCL before she became legal officer.”
If she says that in the House of Commons, her career is over.
The controversial letter was sent at a time the gay-subcommittee was a pedophile think tank.
“a pedophile is somebody who has sex with children younger than the children you are having sex with”
That was how our PIE/PAL friends stormed into the gays like a whip, and they ended up considerably running the show.
Thank you Harriet,
I hope she isn’t rated as a feminist by the way,
Fiona MacTaggart, Vera Baird, and Harriet Harman,
you can afford to give a miss to in my experience, I’m sure Margaret Hodge and Patricia Hewitt will be no help either
I was campaigning against the NCCL, PIE, GLF, PAL, COC and CHE, on pedophile issues as one would have it
Feminists have to understand, that if you lose n the pedophile issue you have lost *period* and it is just flim flam, so feminists need to get serious.
Yvette Doll, with all due respect, I can never make head nor tail out of your comments. You leap from one subject to another.
That’s your problem,
“You leap from one subject to another”
It is the same issue. The FBI keep track of Brit pedophiles, and therein is the BS factor.
Jacqui Smith is offering a scam as a reference.
Jacqui Smith leapt from one to the other
I just offer the advice,
Jacqui Smith, Fiona MacTaggart, Vera Baird, Harriet Harman, Margaret Hodge and Patricia Hewitt
I wouldn’t count on any of them
The (good) advice is also free
Yvette
stormy –
No, I do understand (although thanks for the link to the book), and having read your explanation I think we’re probably not really disagreeing.
I just meant that saying “I’ve changed” as a deliberate lie implies a serious psychopathology: a manipulator, as you say, targeting a woman in order to abuse. I agree that such people exist. But I also think many abusers who say “I’ve changed” genuinely believe they have – which is not to say they’re right, or pose any less of a risk.
The police/military statistic – I didn’t know that. I know you’re not here to educate me, but do you have a link/book reference for that, as I’d be interested to read more?
Actually, I wasn’t really saying that we were disagreeing DD, more that you needed to go further down that road to fully understand underlying causes.
The “I’ve changed” as a deliberate manipulation tactic is very common, with many women believing it until he hits her next time – it’s a well known DV cycle. It is also part of the answer to “why does she stay?”. The other part is usually economic dependence or lack of resources/options.
Sorry, I cannot recall where I came across the police/military stat, I have the feeling it may have been from a DV officer themselves (I kick myself that I cannot remember the source, hence I think it was in conversation). Sandra Horley may have mentioned it in one/two of her books.
I find myself totally agreeing with what Horley has said in response to the new ‘measures’:
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article2309585.ece
Read Horley’s comments in the side panel as well.
There is a better coverage in The Independent:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/smith-heckled-over-gimmicks-on-abuse-1641030.html
Hiya Cath,
Don’t tend to comment on your blog, as I’m sure you see more than enough of me over in the other place, but couldn’t resist nipping in here.
Like everyone else here I hope, I won’t be happy until those poll results are down to zero acceptance of violence against women.
However can I just throw in a talking point?
We have a huge problem with acceptability of violence in our society, full stop. It is not just violence against women. The new Ipsos-Mori survey doesn’t ask the question, of course, but when polls compare the levels of acceptability of violence against women, it is actually significantly lower than almost all other forms of violence. Violence against women is actually the least accepted form of violence in society.
One poll of young people in Northern Ireland last year found:
* 3% of all pupils think it is okay for a man to hit a woman if she nagged or wouldn’t stop arguing (4% of boys, 1% of girls). 13% think it is okay for a woman to hit a man if he nagged or wouldn’t stop arguing (15% of boys and 11% of girls)
* 4% of all pupils think it is acceptable for a man to hit a woman if she is not treating him with respect, while 15% think it is okay for a woman to hit a man in this case
* 19% of young people think it is fine for a man to be violent towards his wife if she has slept with someone else (22% of boys and 16% of girls), while 42% think it is okay for a woman to hit a man in the same circumstances (with no significant difference between boys and girls)
* 12% of all pupils believed that a boyfriend who hits his girlfriend deserves a second chance, 16% say a husband who hits his wife deserves one, but 35% said a girlfriend who hits her boyfriend should get a second chance.
There are countless studies like that, including questions like “it is acceptable for a man to hit another man if he insults him” and countless variations. They all paint the same picture. Society is particularly INtolerant of violence against women.
I’m not going to get into a barney here about the relative significance or seriousness of VAW compared to other types of violence, just pointing out that perhaps the picture is rather more subtle and complex than this discussion would suggest.
Right, I’ll back away now and leave you in peace!
A
x
Hmm strange that ‘violence (meaning of course male violence against women rather than just ‘violence against women’) against women is actually the least accepted form of violence in society.’ Because time and again men charged with raping women are acquitted – yes over 95% men charged with rape are acquitted. In Scotland only 27 men were convicted of rape whilst there were 922 cases of men raping women which were reported to the police.
Not forgetting that each week two women are murdered by current or former male partners. Incidents of males committing violence against their female partners or ex-partners are reported to police approximately every minute.
But there – ‘violence against women is the least accepted form of violence.’ Yes? So why are huge numbers of women and children who have or are still enduring male sexual, physical and pyschological violence? Perhaps it is a case of ‘talking the talk – but not doing the walk?’
Yes the issues are more complex because the majority of male on female violence occurs behind closed doors not in public spaces. Do not forget the so-called knife crime epidemic is occurring within the public sphere as well as being overwhelmingly male on male violence between males who are primarily teenagers. Male on male violence is consistently seen as more ‘serious’ than male on female violence, because much of male on female violence is seen as ‘just natural masculine behaviour because women and children are supposed to defer to male superiority.
Or perhaps it is just a case of ‘what about the menz again?’ Which neatly dismisses women’s and children’s right to live without the constant fear a male relative/father/boyfriend/male colleague/male neighbour is not going to enact his ‘male privilege’ against women and children.
We have had enough of male violence against women and girls in all its shapes and forms.
So for all the ‘subtleties’ or dynamics surrounding relationships, something remains clear – violence against women is historical and it is institutionalized into the vast majority of cultures on this Earth. I guess the old patriarchs from the fifties were also telling us to ‘be quiet woman’ except men don’t publicly get to say that these days so they use different tack. Same shit, basically.
Male violence against females
Male violence against children
Male violence against other males
Male sexual violence against females
Male sexual violence against children
Male sexual violence against other males
Is there a pattern? Or is it too complex for we feeble women to understand?
So instead of dismissing which victims of violence AllyF deems as less important, how about focusing on who the perps are? Yes, the majority of violence and crime is committed by males.
The little ‘kiss’ at the end of his comment is rather sickening actually. A sign of dismissal and contempt.
Well said, Cath.
Hmmm, yes, the x at the end of AllyF’s comment rubbed me up the wrong way. And he basically said ‘what about the men?’. Jennifer Drew is right – probably people saying it is never acceptable for men to hit women because they think that is the acceptable answer… that a man could never hit a woman about fetishing women as ‘vulnerable’ and fragile flowers, which is just benevolent sexism.
What I mean is – it is acceptable in certain circumstances for men to hit/ fight women, namely in self-defence.
That said, it’s perfectly justified to take male violence towards women more seriously than the reverse. Not that either is OK.
Which is likely to do more physical damage? A man hitting a woman, or a woman hitting a man?
Which is supported by institutional power structures?
Oh yes, the so-called knife crime epidemic…male violence to other men matters.
“Male violence against females
Male violence against children
Male violence against other males
Male sexual violence against females
Male sexual violence against children
Male sexual violence against other males
Is there a pattern?”
————–
errrr – yes. A pattern of systematically ignoring and denying female violence against males, female violence against females, female violence against children etc etc.
FWIW, and whether you believe it or not, I’m really not saying “what about teh menz.” Like the rest of you, I’m actually looking for strategies and policies that will reduce violence against women, along with violence against everyone else.
I won’t go any further into it here, as I can see I’m not welcome, but if any of you are genuinely interested in discussing why perhaps violence against women should not be seen in isolation from other forms of violence, then I’ve got a whole blog about it here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/mar/10/women-domestic-violence
I’d be genuinely interested in your thoughts. And I mean that quite sincerely.
I’ll spare you the little sign off kiss this time.
I’m really sorry I’m not able to get into this discussion/debate at the moment, but as some of you may be aware I’m currently away from home attending a conference.
Obviously I’m keeping an eye on things here when I can, and I’ll be back in a few days to give the blog my full attention.
In the meantime, play nice everyone.
And Ally, of course you’re welcome here, everyone is.
C
x
Ally F.
Most violent crime, of any kind is committed by males.
That’s why it’s considered to be a gendered crime. Because it is.
Cath, thanks for that. Appreciated.
Polly – I presume you don’t mean that all violent crime is gendered crime – football hooliganism? Pub brawl? Mugging?
If you do mean that, then I presume you’d agree that shoplifting is also a gendered crime, as it is committed disproportionately by women?
But as I understand my feminist theory, “gendered” means more than that, it means that the crime is caused by and reinforces respective power relations and inequalities between genders.
To me, on that basis, it is quite obvious that FGM, for example is a gendered crime. Most if not all rape is a gendered crime.
With domestic violence, I believe it becomes more difficult to sustain that argument, on lots of grounds. Most tellingly, if DV is a gendered crime, why does all the research show that it is as common in gay and lesbian relationships as it is in heterosexual relationships? I cannot get my head around that at all.
Do you deny this is the case? If so, are you going to take it up with Stonewall, Rainbow Network and other LGBT organisations who have to deal with the reality on the ground, and who insist that the problem is just as severe in their own communities as in the hetero population?
Or do you accept that domestic violence is commonplace in LGBT relationships, but maintain that it is qualitatively different?
If so, could you please explain why? Because I really don’t understand.
Please believe me, I’m not here to pick a fight or score points. I’m genuinely trying to understand your position.
Shoplifting possibly is something more committed by females.
However… big point here … it may be a crime, but it is NOT a VIOLENT CRIME. It does not scar the victim for life.
Violent crime is the domain of men, not exclusively, but the huge majority of violent crime is committed by men.
Most men are considerably heavier than most women.
Most men have significantly more muscle mass than most women.
Most men have significantly more fight experience than women.
Hence, (BCS 2004) 89% of domestic violence victims are women.
Men who are victims of DV are just as likely to be the victims of other men.
So don’t give me the BS that it is some sort of ‘equal’ problem; most domestic violence is committed by men, most domestic violence victims are women.
If you want to solve all the violence in society, look to what men are doing wrong, not what (you think) women are doing wrong.
And another hint, on the use of “x” kisses to sign off: don’t use it when you have effectively come into a discussion saying “no! you (wimmin) are wrong!”. Makes you a condescending jerk with a superiority complex.
FTR, I don’t consider women who fight back (or kill abusive partners) as equally violent, nor equally responsible for the violence.
But heterosexual relationships are the dominant relations not LGBT. And in regards to homosexual DV well that’s male on male violence. Lesbian DV reflects that no one is suggesting that women are not capable of violence.
So, if we take this as a whole: the most common DV is still male violence (on either females or males) and in addition, within lesbian/ gay DV there is (usually) not the typical size and strength discrepancy found within het relationships. TBH, I’m not quite sure where you are going with this.
Moreover, what other movements agitating for social change are expected to take the focus off them selves and to encompass all others? Nope, it’s only women who are expected to do this because us women and men are socialised to believe and to perform that women are for the ‘greater good’ and that we should not put ourselves first. This is why it’s named feminism and when women have liberation then I will become a humanist. Considering that I have worked in the professional caring professions all of my working life (for both women and men) I have the confidence that I don’t have much work to do – but until then.
stormy, sorry, but you haven’t actually answered any of the questions I put to Polly above.
Do you deny that dv is as prevalent in gay and lesbian relationships as it is in heterosexual relationships?
“If you want to solve all the violence in society, look to what men are doing wrong, not what (you think) women are doing wrong.”
I don’t think it’s quite that simple. I’ll repeat my invitation to go have a look at what I say on Cif today. Would genuinely welcome your thoughts.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/mar/10/women-domestic-violence
Oh, and I *am* a condescending jerk with a superiority complex.
Nope, I don’t answers questions that are put to Polly. She can not only speak for herself, but she does a better job of it than myself. In fact, I may just sub contract all my replies to Polly. 😛
But again, AllyF focuses on the minority situation to solve the majority situation. As Sparkle said, the majority of relationships are het, and the majority of violence (in society in general) is committed by males. Deal with it. In is both inefficient and ineffective to focus in and solve the minority of situations and *magically* expect the greater problem to be solved.
Some of us have pubs to go to Stormy, but thanks for not answering questions put to me.
If one gender is overwhelmingly doing something Ally F it is gendered by my definition. You might have a different definition but we can argue about that till the cows come home and we won’t get anywhere.
If there is domestic violence in LGBT relationships, that still doesn’t alter the fact that most domestic violence is COMMITTED by males. And incidentally the only people I have ever known personally who have been beaten up by same sex partners are male.
But let’s look at the figures.
I just put domestic violence statistics into Google and got this:
http://www.crimereduction.homeoffice.gov.uk/dv/dv03a.htm
In 2001/2, 148 homicide victims were killed by their partner or ex-partner (116 women and 32 men)
So the overwhelming number of victims are women. Slice that how you like Ally.
And
The British Crime Survey (BCS) can provide trend information on the number of incidents of domestic violence against women since 1981. The BCS estimates that there were 635,000 incidents of domestic violence in 2001/2 (514,000 against women and 122,00 against men).
Irritatingly these figures do not say how many of these incidents involve same sex couples.
So I turned to Broken Rainbow, and a study by Sunderland university
In the survey, more than a third of respondents (38.4%, 266/692) said that
they had experienced domestic abuse at some time in a same sex
relationship. This included 40.1% (169/421) of the female and 35.2%
(94/258) of the male respondents5. Echoing this, individuals identifying
as lesbian, gay women, or queer were most likely to say that they had
experienced domestic abuse.
It has to be remembered that the questionnaire sample was not random,
nor necessarily representative of the same sex community. Therefore the
levels of domestic abuse experienced do not represent the prevalence of
such abuse within same sex relationships. What the figures do indicate,
however, is that domestic abuse is an issue for a considerable number of
people in same sex relationships in the UK.
As much previous research on domestic abuse in heterosexual or same
sex contexts has shown, it is often difficult to define one’s experiences,
however awful, as ‘domestic violence’ or ‘domestic abuse’. Also, it may
be easier to see physical abuse as part of domestic violence, but difficult
to identify and define the threats and other more psychologically abusive
and controlling experiences in such a way. Kay talked about this in the
interview, posing questions about whether the controlling behaviours she
had experienced from her girlfriend would count as ‘real’ violence:
…it was uhm, you know, the episodes where I couldn’t get her out of
my house … You know and her questioning everything I did and
ringing me up when I was out with people and asking me if there
were any nice girls there….I do think it was quite a controlling
relationship, yeah. And, …when I was filling out the questionnaire ..
I did think, ‘well actually, is this really going to count’… because in
comparison to what some of my friends have been through, you
know, it’s probably not on the greatest scale of long term, abusive,
violent behaviour…. You know, it was pretty short term. Uhm but it
does fall into it, I think. (Kay)
The interviews indicate that a small number of the questionnaire
respondents said that they had not experienced domestic abuse, but
subsequently re-defined their experiences as domestic abuse.
There is a problem here, as you can see, which is how we define domestic violence. Lesbians may define psychological abuse as domestic violence, whereas gay men may not. However homicide is, I would submit, pretty unmistakable. And the majority of victims are women.
When more people murdered in domestic violence are men than women and when more perpetrators are women than men then I’ll admit you’ve got a point. But not before then.
NB the link for the above is this.
Click to access cohsarfinalreport.pdf
I didn’t put it because the comment would have got eaten the spamulator
NB I haven’t read all the comments, life is too short, usually the reason I stay off CiF as well.
Ally, Instead of “what about then men” you are employing another disassociation process by the use of other “symbols” i.e. LGBT. Thusly, the already broad and complex issue of male on female violence becomes erased by arguments about – something else. And as Polly said “When more people murdered in domestic violence are men than women and when more perpetrators are women than men then I’ll admit you’ve got a point. But not before then”
Me too.
And yup Sparks is right. It’s the big fat gay herring you’re trying Ally. Which never works with rabid man hating lesbians like moi. Like that time on CiF you tried to put words in my mouth remember?
The odd bit of domestic violence in LGBT relationships doesn’t alter the fact that the majority of victims of domestic violence are women, the majority of perpetrators, men.
Of course, that should be ‘the’ not ‘then’
In case I confuse the herrings…
Sorry to interupt pubtime Polly. I should know better.
And here’s a clue Ally.
Because one thing happens – in this case some women kill male partners.
That does not negate the other thing that’s happening – A much larger number of men killing female partners.
Now again, if there was no distinct gender bias here, you’d have a point. But there is. And it happens on a constant basis – year on year. It doesn’t swop round one year, more women murder men, it’s constant.
What you are proposing is the equivalent of this ‘logic’.
“Many car accidents take place when the driver is under the influence of alcohol”
“But some car accidents take place when the driver has not been drinking”
“Therefore there’s no connection between drink driving and car accidents”.
Oh I’ve finally found your question Ally. And the answer is this.
Why is domestic violence as common in gay and lesbian relationships as in heterosexual ones.
Answer – because a large proportion of those relationships have men in them. It’s actually as common in gay male relationships as it is in heterosexual ones.
Re lesbian relationships. I don’t know any lesbians personally, and I know a lot of lesbians, who have very nearly been killed by their female partner. Sure there is psychological abuse (for instance I known a few women who’ve been harassed psychologically by ex partners), but I don’t know any lesbians who have even been seriously physically assualted, whereas I do know gay men who have been beaten up by partners or exes.
By contrast, two of my own female relatives have very nearly been killed by male partners or ex partners.
The ‘gendered’ bit is the gender of the PERPETRATOR Ally.
It is also worth pointing out the bit at the bottom of the crime reduction website:
How many women kill their partners?
Over the last 5 years for which figures are available 111 women were indicted for killing their partner/ex partner. In some of these cases, there may have been a history of abuse by that partner.
Some women still get long jail sentences for killing an abusive partner (even after 20 years of abuse, the courts see that as no reason). Many men still get fairly short sentences for killing their wives (“she nagged me / she cheated on me” being popular reasons for men killing wives).
I am totally unable to find any actual statistics on lesbians killing female partners or ex partners. So I put ‘lesbian killed lover’ into google news for 1996-2008. So far I’ve got ONE reported case of a lesbian killing a partner or ex partner, in 2005. That’s worldwide. Bearing in mind such a case is far more likely to get reported than a man killing a woman.
Sorry I’ve just read the story and it turns out they didn’t die, she set fire to a caravan they were in but they escaped.
And now I’ve put in ‘gay man killed lover’. Three reports on the front page of a gay man murdering his partner or ex partner.
Do feel free to repeat this experiment if you don’t believe me Ally.
What about the shooting yesterday in Germany?
Kretschmer killed 15 in total, 12 at the school, 3 on the run.
All 3 of the teachers murdered were female.
8 of the 9 pupils murdered were female.
More from Sandra Horley:
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/sandra-horley-gimmicks-like-jacqui-smiths-wont-help-battered-women-1641894.html
If police can’t help when a woman begs for protection, what difference would it make if her partner’s name was on a register? Creating a register is pointless. Acting when a complaint is made is the real priority.
[…]
Women and children don’t need another consultation. They need serious financial commitment.
Hi everyone. Thanks for your responses.
You won’t be surprised to hear that I’m not entirely convinced yet.
Seems to me that it is not enough to say there’s an asymmetry between male and female DV, therefore this is obviously a gendered crime. It’s also a very good point to say that it very much depends what we mean by DV – which makes comparisons across studies and research projects very difficult. As you’ll all know, the charities involved in routine hetero DV (such as Women’s Aid) define DV in very loose ways – attempting to control household money, insulting and abusive language, belittling and humiliating comments etc etc. So if we’re going to get to the bottom of this we have to compare like with like. I don’t think it is helpful if we define DV in the broadest possible terms (ie any controlling behaviour) when it suits us and then in the narrowest possible sense (who gets murdered more) when it doesn’t. That means looking at studies that directly compare the pheonomena using the same terms and methodologies for each group.
Forgive a quick cut & paste:
“Renzetti reported in her study that of the 100 victims of lesbian battering more than half of the respondents (54%) experienced more than ten abusive incidents during the course of the lesbian relationship and 74% experienced 6 or more abusive incidents (1992, pg. 19). Brand and Kidd (1986) studied the extent of physical aggression (their term) as experienced by 75 heterosexual women and 55 lesbians to determine whether men or women are more abusive in their intimate relationships. The study’s results indicated that men (76%) were more abusive against their female partners more often than were females (51%) in lesbian relationships. They also found that physical abuse occurred more frequently, though not significantly more so, in their heterosexual relationships than in lesbian relationships. Of the 55 lesbians in this study 25% reported physical abuse in their relationships, whereas 27% of the heterosexual women stated that they had been physically abused in their relationships.”
There are a lot of other studies like that. So there are differences there, but far smaller than we would expect if DV was to be explained entirely or largely by gender effects.
From all the data I’ve seen, it looks to me like if you were to draw a graph of frequency of perpetration against severity of the incident, it would begin with males and females pretty much precisely matched on shoving, slapping, throwing small objects etc. As the severity becomes more serious (leaving cuts and bruises etc) through to incidents requiring hospitalisation and ultimately murder, the graph for men and women slowly begins to separate, until with murder, where men are about 3 times more likely to murder their partners than women.
Some of that is down to pure physical strength and size obviously, but some of it is down to behavioural differences between men and women, and that is the amount of variance that I think could (arguably) be attributed to gender effects and even patriarchal social systems.
Let me say one more time, whether you believe me or not, I care deeply about violence against women (and everyone else) and my only aim is to find strategies and policies that will reduce it as far as possible. I don’t think we can ever provide the best practices and best policies if we are trying to squeeze the facts into an ideological model and ignoring, downplaying or denying inconvenient truths.
If we want to understand why some men abuse women, it is very useful to be able to understand why some women abuse women or some women abuse men.
I suspect we’ll never agree, but thanks for listening, anyway.
“If we want to understand why some men abuse women, it is very useful to be able to understand why some women abuse women or some women abuse men.”
What utter nonsense. The number of men committing violence is overwhelming compared to the handful of women. The focus has never been on the male perpetrators and if you have your way I guess it will stay that way.
Have you ever hit, pushed or used your superior physical strength to intimidate or overpower a woman as a matter of interest Ally?
@Delphyne
No. Have you?
@Ally
No. My point is that you’re a man, you benefit from male violence against women, it’s men who need to be asked these questions rather than the continual focus on women.
On the other hand your question was just a smart arsed way of dodging the point.
Do you know men who have used violence against women?
“No. My point is that you’re a man, you benefit from male violence against women”
Right… so when I spent over a year helping a then-girlfriend pull herself through PTSD after her rape, that was to my benefit?
When my female best friend, rape and abuse survivor and self-harmer calls me up at 3am to go round and wrap her up in towels to stop her from bleeding to death before the ambulance gets there, that’s to my benefit?
When my current partner comes home from a night out shaken and in tears because she’s just been harassed and threatened at a bus stop, that’s to my benefit is it?
I benefit as much from any act of violence against women to the precise same extent that you benefit from that maniac biting off her boyfriend’s tongue the other day and then laughing about it.
Or was that a legitimate strike back against the patriarchy to be welcomed by the sisterhood? Probably.
I wasn’t ‘dodging the point’ earlier. I was trying to stick to Cath’s instruction to play nice, rather than saying what I really think, but you make it very difficult.
Your attitude exemplifies perfectly why I believe ideologically driven radical feminists are actively hampering attempts to reduce violence against women. Your attitude is divisive, corrosive and destructive. So long as you start from the assumption that men are violent and abusive you have no chance of winning the support of the vast majority of women, never mind men.
Victims of violence against women deserve better.
Better than this.
Better than you.
Women’s suffering isn’t your suffering. How dare you try to take the harm done to them and use to it bolster your own position and pretend to be victimised by hurt done to them by men.
Men receive male privilege over women because of the violence men as a class enact on women as a class. That is basic feminism. If you don’t know that you have no business even joining in this debate.
And I say a couple of things that are pretty much standard feminism and you come out with a tirade of insults and abuse against me. Read my posts again and then try to rethink your aggressive response.
I’ve been following this debate for a few days now and can almost see the sparks flying. I am an ex victim of rape and domestic violence and in common with 25% of rape victims went on to develop a mental illness, psychosis in my case and it’s only recently I’ve noted my flashbacks have receded. Twenty years on I’m talking about. That’s a long time to have flashbacks. It seems to me that low self esteem is a common factor. In women low self esteem can lead to accepting an abusive relationship as the norm particularly if the partner is a mirror image of the father in childhood, and in men I think insecurity and low self esteem lead them to want to control women which is what sexual violence is about surely. The penalties need to be steep, police must be able to step in to a domestic fight and arrest on the spot, more money is needed for safe refuges, for anger management classes for teaching women assertiveness and to control men who bully. Its taken me a long time to heal. I’ve found myself again but now we need action from Government not arguments.
Hello Cathy!!
Only just found this place. You should stay on CIF, the debate on here looks a bit lightweight, and we miss you 😉
I see that raving misogynist Ally has been taken to task, i dont know why he has such a problem with equal rights for women.
“Because time and again men charged with raping women are acquitted – yes over 95% men charged with rape are acquitted.”
Think you need to clear up a few of these more silly myths though, like the above. 95% of ALL ALLEGATIONS do not result in a conviction, not those charged – your figure includes those reported rapes even later admitted to be false, or found to be false. The % of those reaching court that are convicted is about 44%, roughly the same as it is for most offences. So to say 95% of those charged dont get convicted is sadly pure nonsense. I am an ardent feminist myself and i just cannot tolerate these myths undermining our common cause. We are better than this, sisters.
“Speak out!!!”
(anyhow, well done on setting up the blog cath, looks to be quite popular, but dont abandon us ciffers!!)
“Women’s suffering isn’t your suffering. How dare you try to take the harm done to them and use to it bolster your own position and pretend to be victimised by hurt done to them by men.”
I never said it was ‘my suffering’ or that I was victimised and it is seriously fucking insulting to suggest that I did. I was pointing out that it is bloody ridiculous to suggest that I benefit from violence against women.
“Men receive male privilege over women because of the violence men as a class enact on women as a class. That is basic feminism. If you don’t know that you have no business even joining in this debate.”
It’s not basic feminism. It is one particular strand within the broad church of feminism, as you know full well. I seem to recall it first popped up in Millet’s sexual politics and was roundly debunked about 15 years later by Camille Paglia, if I remember my old reading lists accurately. It is also a strand of thinking that is patently ridiculous, demonstrably false, and highly counter-productive.
—–
“And I say a couple of things that are pretty much standard feminism and you come out with a tirade of insults and abuse against me. Read my posts again and then try to rethink your aggressive response.”
No. You effectively accused me of being a violent abuser of women. What I said in response was actually quite measured and restrained under the circumstances. Read your own post again, and rethink your own prejudicial, insulting and divisive opinions.
No I didn’t, what I did was put the onus back on to you. It’s time to stop talking about the victims of male violence and instead to ask for men to start accounting for themselves. You say you want the focus to go onto women who are violent well I disagree. I want men to start standing up and admitting their violence or explaining why they aren’t violent if they aren’t. You’re a man so you take the question.
You want to keep the focus off men and how their actions affect women. I think it’s time men stopped hiding behind women, but anyhow it seems you’ve got form for misogyny so I’m going to leave you to it. There’s never anything to be gained interacting with bigots and haters.
I can’t believe you believe Camille Paglia has the ability to debunk anything though. That is quite funny.
Oh and one of the obvious benefits you get from male violence is that you get to throw your weight around this blog thread like a complete prick and probably nobody will really call you on it because women are trained to be nice to men because of the fear at the bottom of every interaction that women have with men, even the ones displaying the worst kind of misogyny like you are.
“There’s never anything to be gained interacting with bigots and haters”
Well, yes. That’s certainly been my experience of posting on here so far.
Yes it is difficult to say what we mean by DV Ally F.
That’s why I concentrated on partner/ex partner homicide, since it’s easy enough to tell when someone’s dead.
And the figures are 5 times as many men kill partners as women. Consistently.
Gendered crime? I should say so.
Which you haven’t replied to at all BTW Ally. Why not? Are you in the pub?
And I presume the reason you helped your girlfriend get over rape WAS to your benefit. You wanted to go on shagging her basically. And/or feel important/needed/wanted.
Don’t think I’ll be back here in a hurry. Some of the people commenting on here have serious issues.
“And I presume the reason you helped your girlfriend get over rape WAS to your benefit. You wanted to go on shagging her basically. And/or feel important/needed/wanted.”
The above is one of the nastiest things I have ever read.
“The above is one of the nastiest things I have ever read”
Good gravy you must have lead a sheltered life.
Yet all the violent images and text about women in porn, we just have to “get over it”.
It’s beyond nasty – it’s actually sad and embarrassing. It must be apparent to the vast majority of readers that Ally has conducted himself here politely and carefully, with admirable restraint, and backed up his opinion with facts. The reaction he’s been met with says a great deal: that certain people here are extremely bigoted, and genuinely unpleasant.
Polly – for what it’s worth – my wife was also the victim of a rape. It was, very obviously, a horrible event for her, which I did my best to help her with: the same as I would for anything else she’d suffered through and with; the same as she would do for me in reverse. The fact you can suggest this would have anything to do with ‘shagging’ or wanting to look important shows how out of touch you are with real people, along with just how prejudiced you are. It’s called ‘love’, by the way. Hard as it may be for you to believe, normal people are capable of caring about those who aren’t a member of their sex, race, religion, sexuality, and so on. The act of caring doesn’t need to be explained or justified through political ideology, because most people simply don’t think like you do. Thank Christ.
Oh well. I’ll continue to read Cath’s articles, as I think she’s a genuinely good and intelligent writer, and, even when I disagree with her points, they’re always thoughtful and intelligent. The comments … not so much.
I respectfully suggest that you cease with the attempting to shame women on this topic by using scolding language.
It’s a key anti-feminist silencing strategy; even if that isn’t the actual intent of the man and its objective is to force women to become conscious caretakers of men/ children/ everyone else but ourselves by subduing our own frustration and anger.
It’s also used to remind women that they should strive to avoid being one of those “angry feminists” and that we should be ’real’ women and put every body else’s needs first.
Of course, the facts remains that women get very angry and frustrated and if you are going to read the comments on a feminist blog where non-feminist men are partaking then you are going to see a lot of it.
Seriously, men don’t get to tell women not to be angry.
When a man hits his partner, or vice versa (for example where a man feels routinely belitted i.e emotionally abused by a cleverer partner) it more of less signifies that the relationship has or is about to implode. Rather than the state, egged on by the thoughtless feminasty brigade, seeking to shame men, it should be working re-educate them back into functional, productive relationships. That could take the form of automatic injunction with compulsory rehabilitation. And if that doesnt work, partners chan be given automatic divorces where people are married. There must be more humane ways of takling this problem rather than the foolish George W Bush like attitude to problem solving that some feminists would take.
Sparklematrix –
“I respectfully suggest that you cease with the attempting to shame women on this topic by using scolding language.”
This is precisely the problem. I’m not attempting to shame women; I’m attempting to shame Polly. I’m merely expressing surprise that one single person could be so insensitive and unpleasant to another, simply on the basis of their gender, rather than anything they’ve said or done. I would have said the same if it was a white person attacking someone because they were black, or a man attacking someone because they were a woman.
If you’re reduced to targeting someone on such a basis, you have already disqualified yourself from intelligent debate. Gender doesn’t come into it.
Did the misogynists manage to climb over the wall and escape from CiF? It seems like there has been a mass breakout.
“And I presume the reason you helped your girlfriend get over rape WAS to your benefit. You wanted to go on shagging her basically. And/or feel important/needed/wanted.”
Christ. That really is one of the most vile things i have ever seen on a forum.
you people read cif and you think what Polly said is vile? jaysus but you wouldnt last a day online as a woman, you delicate flowers.
CIF doesnt have abusive nutters like that, no. People on CIF tend to debate, doesnt seem much of that here. Seems more a backslapping club for bitter feminists. Why dont you come over to CIF where people actually discuss things with real stats etc? Is that not a ‘safe’ environment for you to spew your bile in peace?
can I have the link to CIF please?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree
Thanks a lot
Judith,
In particular,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/mar/10/women-domestic-violence
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/gender
Or try that one, might be more suitable.
Thank you Moz and JayReilly
Helpful.
Apologies for my ‘bitter feminists club’ remark, was a little uncalled for.
“Since I began writing for Cif I’ve already had my name linked to a pornographic website, and I’ve also been subjected to online abuse from men who have taken issue with my articles:
“Classic narrow slitty, bitter, sly looking eyes, short hair, mannish looking always, always hate men. Has she never felt like hitting someone – her girlfriend – has she hit her girlfriend?”
The above comment was posted one charmer over at the deceptively named antimisandry.com when I wrote about domestic violence. Another poster suggested an ingenious solution for sorting out the feminists:
“Put them all together in a fucking room with those they are moaning about, and it will be no surprise to see that they will be ripped to shreds limb by limb.”
Nice.
I’ve spoken to women who have told me: “I always read the blogs, but I’d never start commenting on them; there’s too much hatred for women out there.”
Is it really any wonder that women are so reluctant to contribute, when all we get for our pains are campaigns of harassment and intimidation?
If we mention sexism, we’re inundated with instructions on how we should lighten up and quit being so humourless, radical and divisive; mention violence against women and despite all the evidence we can muster we are inundated with posters desperate to prove that women are in fact the more violent sex; try and be lighthearted and we’re accused of being empty-headed and trivial, and try and tackle science and we are accused of not understanding the subject.”
– Cath Elliott, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/nov/28/speakingtruthtopower
“My first experience writing for Comment is Free (cif) was slightly traumatic. The level of personal abuse in the comments was so high that I felt emotionally attacked and drained as I participated. I felt particularly harassed because the attacks were about my gender, race and religion (as opposed to people just calling me stupid, say). As a result, I took a significant break between that first post and my next post.
The existence of rampant misogyny, racism and Islamophobia on cif is no secret. ”
– Zohra Moosa, http://www.thefword.org.uk/blog/2008/06/the_notorious_c
““Cif is a good exception to the rule” of political blogs being male dominated? I don’t even follow the comments threads on my own articles on Cif because they are so full of bile and the first three comments in response to [Rowenna Davis’] article have been censored presumably because of their sexist content”
– James Graham, http://www.theliberati.net/quaequamblog/2009/03/10/how-dominant-is-the-blokeosphere/
“The Guardian’s Women’s editor Kira Cochrane wrote a piece on IVF for overweight women – not the most controversial piece she’s ever written by any stretch. Yet it didn’t take long for the haters to crawl out from the woodwork and start making helpful comments like: how the overweight women should be gang raped and then chopped up into little pieces and left in a bucket. Nice.”
– Caitlin Fitzsimmons, http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/pda/2008/jun/11/futureofjournalismwomenon
You can do your own search for more, if you like.
And so this thread about men’s real, actual physical violence against women, is being diverted by men who expect us to believe that the real ‘vile’ ‘abusive nutters’ are the women who dare question their motives!
There is a whole industry of books and websites devoted to ‘seduction techniques’ that involve taking advantage of women who have been traumatised by other men. (should I bother to mention that prostitution itself is filled with women traumatised early in life so to keep the supply of our bodies available to men?). Do you think we don’t hear your discussions, that we aren’t aware of your motives for letting us cry on your shoulders about our rapes and other experiences of violence at the hands of your fellow men? Polly didn’t say anything we cant all recognise to be true, but oh! Dont hurt the feelings of self defined ‘nice guys’! Thats like the worst most evillest crime ever!
Pathetic.
AllyF
Some of the women on here are, emotionally, very young indeed. Young men with lots of energy to burn will, like young lions, show aggression. Educated young women, so emotionally different from us, in railing against the strictures of their fathers, society, and their own disadvantaged genderised social position, will take up these aggressive immature positions. Some like Cath Elliot know better..when in the cold of night she clings to her man, he is no monster, but in that important context her saviour and protector. Yet, like so many morally bankrupt professional feminists she (Cath) would encourage and condone the wicked male bashing that goes on in here.
Feminism needs to grow up..or at least mature, rational feminist leaders must put their feminist house in order.
These stupid men need to shut up and listen. You are only proving yourself to be complete and utter idiots. Go to the feminism 101 blog, because you clearly don’t understand the first thing about feminism. Bah.
I have never commented on CIF bur lurk there often. It is a very misogynistic place with men often thinking that by laughing off womens concerns over pornography and things such as nuts magazine it is nothing wrong. They never listen to womens concerns over anything and yet if they are accused of being mysogyneostic they get very abusive and angry.
There are definitely more feminists needed over there but I for one feel to intimidated to post.
There is no real balance to the debate and it is not just the women haters there are lots of BNP types on the political threads too. I suppose it depends on weather or not we should try to debate and even the playing field or give it up as a lost cause.
By the looks of things you’re better off staying here actually, you can talk about how nasty men are all day long and no one will contest a word you say…
I thought you preferred 14 year old girls to mature women Ramilie. Please go away. Your arrogant, ignorant woman-hatred is painful to read.
Suzy, I gave up on the Guardian because the extreme levels of misogyny. The impression I got was that the moderators liked it that way. No point in being in a space which is already designed to ensure you lose.
If we were to judge men solely on you and your buddies’ behaviour Jay, that point has already been proved.
Christ, you really are a sad bunch. You accuse people of consoling girlfriends just to get a shag and of preferring 14 year old girls just because they disagree with parts of your ideology? When i see sites like this its no surprise ‘feminism’ has now been rejected by about 95% of women; it is in terminal decline.
“Suzy, I gave up on the Guardian because the extreme levels of misogyny. The impression I got was that the moderators liked it that way. No point in being in a space which is already designed to ensure you lose.”
Last time i counted the deletions on a feminist thread, 21 comments had been removed, and all 21 were contesting the feminist position. If thats your idea of somewhere thats anti-feminist you’re on another planet. Even most feminists on cif would concede the moderation is distinctly pro-feminists.
Suzy – theres plenty of feminists on cif, and plenty of feminists who are popular with posters, even male posters, even ‘antifeminist’ posters. Kizbot, Annetan, Sarka, Cath herself, Montana – they are feminists and they dont get abuse, they are popular regulars. But then again they dont go in for the rabid hatred type of feminism that seems popular here, they go for the more compassionate, egalitarian variety.
“If we were to judge men solely on you and your buddies’ behaviour Jay, that point has already been proved.”
Could you quote something that i or ‘my buddies’ have said that shows a hatred of women? A few quotes maybe? Or is our real crime being men?
It’s strange – I went away from CiF and Guardian columnists for a while because of the levels of misandry there. I considered that the moderators liked it that way (and, for that matter, still do).
@Delphyne
Your half digested sixth form feminism is what’s really embarrassing. Did I ever say that, personally, I preferred 14 year olds? When you grow up you will hopefully realise that proper debate is the exchange of ideas, and that you can only hope to convincingly win an argument (and demonstrate your mental agility and wider reading) when you ably deconstruct the opposing argument….. and certainly not by calling him/her names or throwing your toys out of the pram.
Try again Jay, I didn’t mention your hatred of women. You claimed all we were interested in was talking about how nasty men are. You’ve all been extremely nasty, hostile and contemptuous here thus if we were to judge men solely on the behaviour of you and your pals the point has been proved.
Oh god another @.
Fucking weirdo. Fuck off.
@Delphyne
I hope you get banned for that foul mouthed behaviour.
My six year old could teach you manners….
“You’ve all been extremely nasty, hostile and contemptuous here”
Really? Maybe its got something to do with you lot accusing someone of being an abuser and only consoling a girlfriend to get a shag just because he quotes some evidence you dont like.
I came along originally to say hello to cath and see what her blog was like. I thought maybe the comments would be a bit like Caths comments, you know, thoughtful, well supported with evidence, often funny, instead you lot seem to prefer accusing people of abuse and paedophilia just because they disagree with you on things. Im amazed cath tolerates you lot.
You should ask Cath about the modding on CIF, see if she thinks its pro fem or anti fem.
Hi All,
I’ve been following this and the CiF thread with interest (unfortunately it’s just closed).
My interpretation of a feminist position is:
“Being female should not mean being treated differently from men, just because you’re female”
This position I agree with, and leads (to me) to:
“gender should not be relevant”
Which is why I have such a hard time understanding the people on here who seem to be passing judgement on Ally and Jay, just for being men. I really can’t see how many people here have interpreted their comments as misogynist, could someone please explain it to me?
It also leads me to wonder why feminists are so concerned about keeping everything separate, and concentrating solely on women, insisting the men should “take care of their own”. Surely we should be providing services based on individual needs, not some one-size-fits-all-the-man-is-more-often-the-abuser-so-lets-assume-he’s-always-the-abuser approach (which is all that Ally’s been arguing, far more eloquently than me).
I am going to pull out the Humanist Bingo board soon.
Really I will.
As Cath said in her piece.
“Will men who fall in love with violent women also be warned by the police?”
“Is there going to be a review of violence against men?”
“Where’s the funding for men’s shelters?”
“The statistics are wrong: this isn’t Iran/the Congo/insert country of choice, gender specific violence is not an issue in the UK”
“What about the menz?”
“And so on and so forth interminably and ad nauseum until women are once again entirely erased from the debate”
@STORMY
Do you remember Jane Andrews…..
“Really?”
Yes.
In fact..there is a long list…..
http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/women/
sparklematrix
IF any of that was directed at me could you please point out where I said any of the following?
“Will men who fall in love with violent women also be warned by the police?”
“Is there going to be a review of violence against men?”
“Where’s the funding for men’s shelters?”
“The statistics are wrong: this isn’t Iran/the Congo/insert country of choice, gender specific violence is not an issue in the UK”
“What about the menz?”
Arguing that the situation is not white is not necessarily the same as arguing that it’s black.
Does CIF tolerate the same horrific levels of homophobia and racism as they do this really appalling woman-hatred as a matter of interest?
I’ve got a horrible feeling they might.
No Dotterel, it was not directed specifically at you but merely pointing out what Cath had said in the original piece. This was a post about violence against women and if men (and women) want to talk about violence against men then set up a platform to do so.
As Jennie Rigg said on Liberal Conspiracy a few days ago.
You want to see a decrease in violence towards men? Why not campaign about it? Why derail every single fucking campaign about violence against women? You do see what I’m getting at, don’t you? I mean, you don’t see Save the Whale protestors derailing anti-seal cull protests, and you don’t see anti-seal-cull protesters at whale hunts shouting “but what about the SEALS??”
How about you support us, and we’ll support you? How about instead of rubbishing this campaign, why not say “great idea girls, and something I can fully support. No woman deserves to be beaten up and raped! Incidentally, I am supporting this other campaign, about male violence, fancy joining in?”
sparklematrix
Thanks for the reply.
“You want to see a decrease in violence towards men? Why not campaign about it? Why derail every single fucking campaign about violence against women? You do see what I’m getting at, don’t you? I mean, you don’t see Save the Whale protestors derailing anti-seal cull protests, and you don’t see anti-seal-cull protesters at whale hunts shouting “but what about the SEALS??””
I honestly don’t see how AllyF’s comments* “derail” the campaign about violence against women. I don’t think his comments are akin to Save the Whale protesters derailing anti-seal cull protests. As I see it, at worst the analogy would be “please give your money to the save the whale campaign instead” (a slightly more reasonable position, given limited resources) and at best (and I’d put AllyF in this category) the analogy is “can we find a solution that stops people whale hunting AND seal culling?” Not all that far from (and actually more efficient than):
“How about you support us, and we’ll support you? How about instead of rubbishing this campaign, why not say “great idea girls, and something I can fully support. No woman deserves to be beaten up and raped! Incidentally, I am supporting this other campaign, about male violence, fancy joining in?””
*incidentally I’m supporting AllyF’s position because it’s very close, if not identical, to mine, and so it’s quicker than setting my views out from scratch.
Dotterel – it is perfectly acceptable for oppressed groups to have their own space to talk, campaign and agitate without other more powerful groups disrupting that space. This was a post about violence against women and if you read around feminist blogs you will see the same scenario played over and over. Cath anticipated this and wrote it into her piece.
What about the men…is a disruption. There are plenty of other spaces for men to talk about violence against men.
For example – If PoC are having a discussion about police brutality against young black men here in the UK, it is not acceptable for young white men to interject with ‘what about the white boys’
That needs to be addressed on a forum regarding un-specific police brutality.
Hi Kizbot here.. i’m a regular poster on Cif and a feminist. I disagree that CiF is intimidating… it’s usually not hard to hold your own on cif against the dipsticks, of which there are, admittedly, more than a few.. But I wouldn’t count Jayreilly or AllyF amongst them. In fact they are both very interesting posters, up for serious debate. The jibe directed at Ally was indeed very nasty and totally uncalled for. There is no policy banning men from Cath’s blog.. she said all are welcome and Ally was trying to get into debate. What is wrong with debating fem issues with men, or even people of indeterminate gender, for that matter.. making feminism an exclusive club doesn’t just piss off some men, it alienates the vast majority of women… How can an ideological standpoint that alienates so many women be feminist? genuine question
Bullshit Ramiie, it is not a list that long.
You don’t want to go there, because for every female who has murdered her spouse/partner, there will be at least five males who have done it.
And in fact, many times when a female has murdered a male partner, it was due to years of abuse (and usually not seeing a way out of that abuse). More women kill themselves in abusive situations than actually murder the partner.
Also, when women kill men, it is BIG BIG news, because it is such a fairly rare occurance. Not so with men killing women. Or raping women. Most of that never even makes the papers it is so common as to not be newsworthy. So just get back to your rather creepy campaign to make it legal to fuck 14yo girls.
Thanks for that comment by Jennie Rigg, Sparks.
As I am sick of hearing the waddabout-teh-menz chorus EVERY FUCKING TIME violence against women gets mentioned.
“What is wrong with debating fem issues with men”
Time and place and not dictated by men.
“Time and place and not dictated by men.”
well what’s wrong with here and now then? It hasn’t been dictated by any man. It’s cath’s blog, she says people are welcome to come here… Are you saying they’re not?
Yeah, I know it’s Cath’s blog I’ve been a reader since she set up and oh yeah, you keep saying.
‘here and now’ what about?
It has been dictated by men if you care to read the entire thread after Ally interjected with his “what about the men”
This thread is now officially “what about the men” oh, what a surprise!
Blimey
I go away for a few days and world war bloody 3 breaks out in my own little corner of t’Internet!
Can I please remind everyone here that I do have a comment policy! Maybe I’ve been a bit lax with it, but I am prepared to enforce it if people don’t start cooling things a bit.
And yes, everyone is welcome to post here, male or female, and robust debate is welcome.
I repeat, play nicely, stick to the issues, and please stop the personal abuse.
As Cath (yup it’s Cath’s blog) said…
In fact, I can already predict some of the responses we’re likely to hear over the next few days:
“Will men who fall in love with violent women also be warned by the police?”
“Is there going to be a review of violence against men?”
“Where’s the funding for men’s shelters?”
“The statistics are wrong: this isn’t Iran/the Congo/insert country of choice, gender specific violence is not an issue in the UK”
“What about the menz?”
Doesn’t mean that I/ we have to talk about men just because it was predicted.
I can live with it being what about the men if it is “what about the male perpetrators of violence against women”.
“Do you think we don’t hear your discussions, that we aren’t aware of your motives for letting us cry on your shoulders about our rapes and other experiences of violence at the hands of your fellow men? Polly didn’t say anything we cant all recognise to be true,”
Yes this is it, v. We women all know this, we’ve experienced it, we’ve seen it but we aren’t allowed to talk about it and we certainly aren’t allowed to challenge any man about this kind of behaviour, either his own or that of his peers.
We see extremely nasty contempt and abuse from them on this thread, because we dare point out male abuse of women.
“Do you think we don’t hear your discussions, that we aren’t aware of your motives for letting us cry on your shoulders about our rapes and other experiences of violence at the hands of your fellow men? Polly didn’t say anything we cant all recognise to be true,”
Oh no, some women are getting out of the box lads!
Quick, pull out all the stops!
i saw some pretty nasty abuse coming from some of the women posters as it goes.. and I don’t like it… I’ve been a big fan of Cath’s for a long time and think she is one of the best writers the Guardian has had the good fortune to employ… but I don’t like the tone of this thread at all.. I’m off back to cif, ta very much… where at least there is, at times, a semblance of debate… enjoy your whinge fest folks.. I’m gone.
sorry cath.. its not you, but this is not my style
“I’m off back to cif, ta very much… where at least there is, at times, a semblance of debate”
What, testosterone fueled penis waving?
Oh my. Girls – AllyF and JayReilly are two of the most reasonable men you’re ever going to “meet”. They’re both actually quite capable of changing their minds IF you provide them with a reasoned argument for why they should. (Though, from where I sit, I don’t see that either of them needs to change their minds on this issue.)
It seems to me that what some of you want here is not debate, but an arena for the mutual masturbation of “Aren’t men just a bunch of violent shitbags?”. Well, no ladies, most men are not violent shitbags. Most men are actually decent human beings. But when decent, well-intentioned men read article after article tarring all men with the brush of violence and telling them that they have to take responsibilty for this violence, it is only to be expected that they will become resentful. And then where are we?
There is nothing anti-woman in suggesting that current models of DV service provision aren’t working terribly well. There is nothing anti-woman in suggesting that men can be victims of female aggression and that their needs are not being met.
I worked for a DV/SA crisis centre for a year and, believe me, I’ve seen some pretty ugly attitudes towards women – there are some real rat-bastards in small-town American law enforcement and I’ve been shouted down by a Bible-thumping student while trying to talk about domestic violence and sexual assault to a class at the local community college. Thing is, most of the men I met were sympathetic and open to the message. It didn’t jive with the rad-fem, suspicious-of-all-men attitudes that prevailed with other service providers. I got out when I felt myself slipping into those attitudes. It isn’t healthy.
I love Cath to bits, but I’ll take Cif any day. I don’t want to live in a world of perpetual victimhood.
I do *love* how the males *must* make a big statement of being insulted and leaving.
Countless women have been insulted on various CiF threads, and not done the same grandstanding. They just don’t bother to post there any more.
Yes, dare we women speak frankly and put the blame on male perpetrators? Or should we just STFU and be content with the status quo?
Cookie for Montana.
That was a snark btw. Sucking up to men.
Co-habiting and sucking up to men has gotten nowhere for women. Being reasonable has gotten nowhere.
Dare I remind the debating folks of the suffragettes? Not so welcomed. Very much heckled. Very much the scourge of what was wrong with society – blah de blah.
So Montana, think just a bit more deeply before siding with men and expecting them to make things right for females. They won’t. Unless forced to.
@Stormy –
Kizbot and I are both women.
Sucking up to men??? Think just a bit more deeply????
[This post has been edited. See my comment upthread re personal abuse.
Cath]
[Edited]
Oh dear, calling women animals now are we?
oh shit i’m posting again… don’t lose it wildhack… I’m trying not to for Cath.. I’m pretty sure it will upset her that things have turned nasty..
btw.. check yr google account have sent you sth XXX
sparkle- I am a woman and so is wildhack… And you want to try not being so damned intimidating to people… women included.. You come over as very aggressive indeed..
“oh shit i’m posting again… don’t lose it wildhack… I’m trying not to for Cath.. I’m pretty sure it will upset her that things have turned nasty..”
btw.. check yr google account have sent you sth XXX
I see, a concentrated CiF swarm – thought so. No debate there then?
“sparkle- I am a woman and so is wildhack… And you want to try not being so damned intimidating to people… women included.. You come over as very aggressive indeed..”
I didn’t say that you were not women – you have the wrong poster…
I know, Cath & Kiz and I’m sorry. But as someone who has been a victim of both DV and SA and who has worked in the field, I think I’ve thought about the issue quite enough to be justified in taking umbrage when someone tells me that I need to think about it “a bit more deeply”. That woman has no clue what my life experience and level of knowledge is? How dare she?
Yep lots of ciffers have come on here today.. of both sexes and indeterminate genders… not been made to feel welcome though… Very conducive to debate that is…
Kizbot – sparkle- I am a woman and so is wildhack… And you want to try not being so damned intimidating to people… women included.. You come over as very aggressive indeed..
Please address the right person.
Okay, just to make you happy, sparklematrix:
@stormy:
Kizbot and I are both women. Yes, we’re both Cif regulars. I think I can speak for both of us when I say that we have never been treated with such condescension and contempt on Cif as we have here.
“Yep lots of ciffers have come on here today.. of both sexes and indeterminate genders… not been made to feel welcome though… Very conducive to debate that is…”
Ah yes, while the women fight amongst themselves re: “what about the men” — because, let’s face it, I’m sure men can stand up for themselves instead of hiding behind women.
No apologies, that’s why I won’t do it.
sparkle- your post saying ‘calling women animals are we’ implied that you didn’t think wildhack was a woman.. or that was my impression. I simply wished to make clear that we are women.
and feminists..
“Okay, just to make you happy, sparklematrix:”
Thank you.
“sparkle- your post saying ‘calling women animals are we’ implied that you didn’t think wildhack was a woman.. or that was my impression. I simply wished to make clear that we are women.
and feminists..”
No it didn’t and that comment came after the accusation that I was stormy.
‘No apologies, that’s why I won’t do it.’
Don’t then.. your choice.. not under any obligations…
So then that’s that debate over..
And I’d just like to add.. to all those sneering a ciffers.. Cath’s one too 😉
Montana, I assumed you were a female. That does NOT change what I said to you.
No free passes. This is NOT liberal feminism (libfem), closely related to Humanism.
This is about radical feminism; “getting to the root” which is what radical feminism means, not some trendy wotsit thingame jig.
If you actually thought about it (or heavens forbid, researched it!), the suffragettes were NOT well received, with their ‘radical’ campaigning that women should have the vote. It took them decades to get the vote. Campaigners died. Campaigners were seriously in ill health and imprisoned, to get women the vote. The opposition, were basically writing what the CiF commenters write now, although with slightly different points.
If you actually think that it went like:
“Hey guys, we would really like to vote, would you give us the vote please?”
“OK then”
Then you are seriously mislead. It was a fucking battle. Over decades. Women died for the cause. Women were injured in the cause.
And yessums, I actually do know a fair bit about rape and domestic violence as it happens. If you click on my name, it takes you to the DV Memorial blog. In amongst the CiF crowd, I actually am not willing to disclose any personal details.
Oh my.
Yes, ‘what about the men’ is exactly analogous to going into an anti-seal culling group and saying ‘what about the whales’?
If you want to save the whales, if you want to save all animals, set up your own group.
Although, the analogy breaks down as whales aren’t institutionally priveleged over seals.
More like derailing a group trying to end violence towards oh, I dunno, tarantulas or *insert non cute and furry animal here*.
And since Jennifer Drew mentioned OMG TEH KNIFE CRIME (cos men killing men, that matters, of course, compare the media coverage compared to that of the 2 women who die a week due to DV) – yeah, Ally, why aren’t you protesting that the knife crime stats are biased, campaigns against knife crime are ‘driven by knife-hating dogma’, and protesting ‘what about gun/ machete/ hammer crime?’
Since when do women not have internalized misogyny and fight/ use abusive language towards other women – to protect men?
That’s why I won’t do it.
i didn’t say you were stormy.. I addressed my post to you and it was after you got het up with wildhack… read back and see…
I obviously missed stuff that got deleted, the stuff about animals? Crap, how did the convo turn in that direction?
To clarify – that was in support of Jennifer Drew’s comment, reiterating her point.
I never insinuated that you were men. Calling you out for naming a woman a ‘cow’ is not saying that she is a male. Please.
i’m not protecting any man… i’m giving my opinion… like it or lump it…
i’m sorry that it upsets some feminists that other feminists live with, get on with lots of men.. but hey ho.. there it goes!
Also, what the fuck is all this sucking up to Cath?
I guess you hope she will ban/censor these ‘screaming harpies’ or whatever we are supposed to be, this week.
Or perhaps it is just the illusion of sucking up to “fame!”?
Frankly, I just like Cath for her outspokeness.
Not coz she is faymous. Please people, internet celebrity is jackshit. Get a life.
‘Calling you out for naming a woman a ‘cow’ is not saying that she is a male. Please.’
i didn’t.. though there are times when I’m more than bleedin tempted…
Kizbot. A (male) cookie for you too!
Don’t ever bite the hand that feeds. Oh wait, I don’t need to tell you that, you have it down pat.
Goodie for feminism, we is saved!
/snark, if I didn’t need to tell you.
“i didn’t.. though there are times when I’m more than bleedin tempted…”
You see, this is why I don’t argue for ‘men’s rights’
…they can look after themselves.
@Stormy – Where do you get off thinking that I don’t know enough about the long, bloody struggle for women’s suffrage just because I don’t tow your party line? Acknowledging that men need to be part of the solution and allowing men to have a voice in the debate isn’t the same as expecting big, strong men to fix things for us weak, little girls. That you seem to think it is says more about you than it does about me.
Also – _I_ never suggested that you don’t know anything about DV/SA. _You_, by telling me that I needed to “think more deeply” about it, were very definitely implying that _I_ didn’t.
goodness me stormy- Wot on earth are you on about? I don’t think cath’s going to ban people simply because i admit to being a fan of her writing… and saying I am is not sucking up for cryin out loud… I have a life and am not interested in any kind of sleb culture wotsoever… I just happen to think she is one of the guardian’s better writers… along with AllyF as it goes… don’t be so mean spirited!
I’d love a biscuit stormy! Any tea to go with it?
Oh never mind… I’m on the wine now anyways…
Seriously – I’m tired of women arguing “what about the men”
I’m more concerned about “what about the women” home and abroad – take it or leave it. This is what feminism is about. Women.
@Kiz –
Pass the bottle and light one up, will you? It isn’t even 5 pm here yet, but I’m sprogless for a week and after this little business – I’m ready.
Diary’s up in the other place. Thanks!
Montana
xxx
Hello, over from CiF.
I think, perhaps, people may have got their wires crossed a little bit here. What I got from AllyF’s posting about this subject is not a defensive: “yeah but there are violent women so stop having a go at men”. I think he was saying that some portion of the instances of domestic violence may be motivated by something other than a male desire to control or assert power over women. To ilustrate this he bought up same-sex DV and DV by women against men. In other words there may be a root to some DV outside of enforcing patriarchal norms.
I think this this quote by Robert Anton Wilson about child abuse is illuminating:
“In existential reality, a large brutal male is beating a child; in The “Real” Universe of self-hypnosis, the Right Man is getting his just revenge on the oppressors who have abused him. …”
‘This is what feminism is about. Women.’
well.. it is… and it isn’t… Seeing as a hell of a lot of women live their lives with men, as lovers husbands fathers brothers co-workers etc then i fail to see how feminism can be purely isolationist
Hi spacepenguin! Duck and cover, mate!
Dawg, I had to hit the wine a long time ago to navigate this thread with any shred of sanity.
Montana, how old are you?
I am middle-aged. I have been around. And nor was I any prissy know-nothing-about-sex yaddah yaddah yaddah. It is the assumption that radfems are anti-sex prudes, and know nothing about these so-called new discoveries about empowerfulness via fucking. Got the t-shirt, and would probably curl your eyebrows with the stuff I have done. And I still (very unfortunately) get propositioned on a regular basis, despite my best efforts (to discourage of course).
I am kind of sick of hearing about “we has to involve menz!” “we has to be nice to menz!”
Just because you are female, does NOT necessarily mean you are automatically a feminist. It is a political position, not necessarily a birthright.
‘This is what feminism is about. Women.’
“well.. it is… and it isn’t… Seeing as a hell of a lot of women live their lives with men, as lovers husbands fathers brothers co-workers etc then i fail to see how feminism can be purely isolationist”
I too live with males but feminism is about women – not about men.
It has nothing to do with whom you live with or your gene pool – feminism is a political and ideological movement about women.
how does that work sparkle? i mean how can it just be about women when we live our lives with men (most women I mean)?
stormy- both me and wildhack are middleaged ish ish.. and I hate to break this to you but neither you nor anybody else here or aywhere at all gets to decide who is and isn’t a feminist.. We might be from different ends of the feminist spectrum but we’re still all feminists…
MontanaWildhack:
Hello, thanks for the advice but I honestly think there has been a bit of a misunderstanding.
A lot of feminist articles that I have seen, certainly on CiF, get responses that strike me as men responding personally to critiques of wider social trends. This defensiveness then leads to the subject changing from the initial issue to something like competitive victim hood. I can understand why this must be exasperating.
Also, of course there are actual misogynists.
I get toadstools in the front garden claiming to be feminist.
Perhaps it boils down to: I previously lived my life like “a slut” and not a relatively solo male-partnered woman like yourselves?
Basically, I test-drove lots of men, and found most to be defective from the factory. I wanted my money back.
Yep, stormy – middle aged. You keep reading into my comments things which are not there. You keep making assumptions you have no right to make. I don’t subscribe to your Weltanshauung, so I must be a silly young girl with no knowledge of the “real” world. Wrong. I’ve just come through my experiences without the bitterness that seems to tinge your outlook. I’ve come to realise that progress will not be made by alienating men who would like to support the goal of making life more equitable for everyone. We’re not fighting the Nazis. Living with and loving men is not “collaboration” or “appeasement”. I feel really sorry for you that you choose to see it that way.
My you make a lot of assumptions stormy.. You know nothing about me or wildhack other than what you’ve seen here.. Wildhack can speak for herself but..
‘Basically, I test-drove lots of men, and found most to be defective from the factory. I wanted my money back.’
Is at least very funny… and tbh.. though I don’t want to get into a point scoring ‘I bet i’ve had more men than you have one’ at 45 and never married i’ve had a fair few myself…Now, I kinda half live with one I really am inordinately fond of.. still got my own place though…
And am am am a feminist… for nigh on 30 years… you may not like it but.. so?
“Living with and loving men is not “collaboration” or “appeasement”.”
Sucking up to people like AllyF definitely is though.
“how does that work sparkle? i mean how can it just be about women when we live our lives with men (most women I mean)?”
Because it’s about women’s liberation from male supremacy on multiple levels, whereby our society’s defines all people and institutions for the benefit of the rich, white male. Feminism rejects the male definitions of how she should feel, act, look, and live. It rejects a culture that denigrates and despises women and it rejects male sexual/political domination. Feminism puts women first while the society declares the male supreme and therefore threatens male supremacy at its core. When politically conscious and organized, it is central to destroying our sexist, racist, capitalist, imperialist system. As I repeatedly say “ when women are liberated – then I will be a humanist – but until then” No chance.
Wot is people like AllyF.. Do you know anything about him? Ever read any of his stuff on cif? Ask Cath about him sometime.. she’ll give you an honest answer… (was her kiss at the end of her post to him sucking up too.. or wot?)
Good luck then sparkle.. i just don’t think any of us can be free until we all are, personally… it can’t happen in a vacuum, as far as I’m concerned… we’ll just have to agree to differ…
@spacepenguin – there are also lots of articles on Cif that paint all men with the broad brush of misogyny. How should a man react to reading an article that seriously posits that women, in order to be true feminists, must either engage in lesbian sex or no sex at all because, sexual relationships with men are a betrayal to the cause of feminism? How on Earth should a heterosexual woman who considers herself a feminist react?
@stormy – It’s somewhat telling that you would say you lived your life as “a slut”. It suggests to me that you are still coming to terms with the choices you made. I’m not trying to be hurtful, judgmental or presumptuous, but perhaps your unease with your choices and the motives for those choices is manifesting itself in a resentment of the men you slept with. You’ve encountered a lot of jerks in your life. So have I. It doesn’t mean that all men are jerks. You’re hurting yourself as much as anyone when you succumb to that type of thinking. There are good men out there – I know. I’ve met some. It’s just been my bad luck that some other woman has laid claim to them by the time I’ve met them!
No Kizbot I met him over here and he’s full of it.
The impression I’m getting is that CIF drags people’s standards down so much that probably AllyF is a prince among men in that group. Being one of the better chaps, given what the alternative is over there, is not really a recommendation for him or any of the other twits that have shown up today though.
@delphyne –
Sucking up to AllyF? I adore Ally. He genuinely is one of the good guys – I’ve seen his white hat! 🙂
Guess what Kiz and Montana?
Whist we are arguing amongst ourselves, dudes like AllyF get to sit back and laugh and enjoy the show!
Ever think about that?
Oh noes! Must attack the radfems! They is not the menz who will give us cookies!
I actually expect more, if you both are middle-aged. Most women, even non-feminists, have seen the light by then.
But you both come off as being in your mid 20s to mid 30s. But hey, take that as a compliment in the (female) youth worshipping culture. You can get menz! Yippee!
Like I said Delphyne.. ask Cath about him.. Or do you think cif has dragged her standards down too? Or you could… you know… try reading one of his articles.. If it won’t taint you too much to enter cifland…
Montana: Male worship much?
Seriously, how do you equate male worship with feminism?
I know! Redefine it! HAH! Problem solved.
It’s like the teenybop fanclub. We heart AllyF.
Why would I want to read one of his articles when he’s been such an arse and so abusive over here kizbot? No thanks.
couldn’t give a damn about youth culture.. am very proud of my middle-agedness and rather looking forward to getting even older… I’ve found life just gets better as I get older…
And your comments about allyF and men are just plain silly and very childish..
and who needs cookies when drugs are available? Your turn to skin up wildhack!
Gee, I wonder why feminism has not reached its goals already?
Could it be way too many women either defending men, supporting men, not offending men … that could be the problem?
Nooooo!
Here’s the cluestick: Feminism: NOT ABOUT MEN.
No, no feminism is about luurrrving men Stormy and trying to force them down other women’s throats. Men are fab.
Didn’t you get the memo? It was pink and the paper smelt like strawberries.
MontanaWildhack:
I agree with you about the Bindel type articles. I was referring more to reasonable articles about specific subjects like prostitution or DV against women. I think in those cases some male posters react as if they were ManU fans and the article was about football violence. They have a visceral response as if some one had accused them personally of being rapists or wife beaters. This leads to the thread being derailed. I don’t think AllyF did that, as I said I think he is analysing DV.
The point is I can see how that must become tiresome to deal with and give you a hair trigger when you perceive it, rightly or wrongly, to be happening.
I think your reaction to the Bindel article is fully justified BTW.
Here’s another clue. Feminism is not controlled by one particular strand of ideologues. You sound very much like you want to give orders to people about how they should think, stormy…well guess what… I don’t need telling…
What goes down your throats girls is none of my business… I’m not forcing anything on anyone… I’m giving my opinions… why do some of you seem to find other people’s opinions threatening? And enjoy being so sneering? It makes you sound incredibly condescending… Is it ok to treat women who aren’t radical fems like lesser mortals?
“It’s like the teenybop fanclub. We heart AllyF.”
Yup, LOL the men totally are laughing their arses off at you about this.
“look” they say “we don’t even have to do anything – we just get the biatches to fight our corner for us”
“pass the fags Mike”
Oh dear – I see much emotional mop up when the realization hits – that the men don’t really like you very much.
*snort*
Spacepenguin, do you actually know Julie Bindel?
Do you know a lot of the practical activism she has done?
If the answer is no on both counts, then you seriously do not know what you are talking about.
Congrats kizbot, I regard you exactly the same as AllyF. Tis official. You is a Manz! Hold a ceremony of some sort. I decline the invite.
Sparks, same wavelength. Totally.
Not really bothered about who does or doesn’t like me very much… male or female… I can hold my own in this world quite nicely.. but thanks for the concern for my emotional state…
And I don’t need to stick up for ally at all… he’s more than capable.. i just asked those of you sneer at him to either read some of his stuff or ask Cath what she thinks of him, seeing as you seem to have decided that I simply live my life vicariously through men and as a colluder am not to be trusted
“you sound incredibly condescending”
No that would be you kizbot. You and Montana will definitely be winning the smug award on this thread – “We luv the boyz and the boyz luv us”.
If you’re a man though, that would be quite funny.
Stormy:
I was referring to the article advocating political lesbianism that MontanaWildhack referenced. Surely her activism is irrelevant when considering her specific arguments?
errr, you kind of said it already.
But hey, YAY menz eh?!
Yippe for the menz! Don’t worry, THEY will tell us what to do! Can’t trust silly wimmin to know what they want, wait for a “nice guy” to tell us.
Yup. Got it. Good luck with the sucking up. See how far it will get you.
Just because Julie Bindel has done a lot of practical activism (which is more than true and good on her) doesn’t mean you have to agree with her opinions as espoused in her cif articles on things like political lesbianism..
WTF do you have against political lesbianism?
It’s not like you even have to “muff munch”, just identify primarily with women, and be woman centred.
Kiz and Montana. You seriously need to run back to AllyF on CiF. HE will tell you what to do.
Dawg forbid you could decide for yourselves.
I’m not a man… and very very happy to be a woman. I don’t think I’m being smug.. I think I’m trying to debate and all I’m getting is laughed and pointed at as a ‘you love menz’ woman… nice one… go back and read the thread… I’ve really tried to keep my temper despite the jeering… but guess what fuck it.. you just want to talk amongst yourselves… fair enuf… have a nice party
Hey – zzzZZZzzz about the level of CiF so called ‘debate’ on here. May be back? that’s my prerogative.
Diagnosis – a lot of very young women desperate for male approval while kicking other women under the bus.
Well done!!! just what the MAN ordered – see you around in a couple of years or maybe even sooner…
Clue: men are not gods – that’s a left over myth from Christianity.
x
Oh boo hoo.
I am really sad that you will not be bringing your “I luv menz, they will tell me what to do” to the table.
Hey, if menz dropped off the planet, who would you turn to? Toughy. There would only be women left.
Me, I would carry on as business as usual, but be a lot happier. Oh no! I would not miss men on the planet – quick! strike me down as a heretic!
stormy:
I have two main objections:
1) It requires, for straight women, suppressing part of their identity.
2) It seems very similar to Ancient Greece with the sexes swapped. From what I know about that culture the less like it we are the better.
SP, you actually do not know what Political Lesbian means.
It does NOT mean you (necessarily) have to have sex with women, only be women-centred. Effectively, a separatist (as far as practical).
Bottom line: Not fucking men.
Oh yeah, Ancient Greece. A boon for women. Men fucking men, and women kept in the house to breed.
Was that a good thing? They had philosophers, so well civilised then. Shame about the laydees. Never mind. History is written by the winners.
Oh, come on..
Ally and damagedoor come on and defend your turf.
Why are you letting the wimms defend your position.
Shame…
stormy:
Surely not fucking men is suppressing part of yourself if you want to fuck men?
You have it right about Ancient Greece, perhaps the most misogynistic society in history. My point is that making one sex the centre of your life is what the Ancient Greeks did, simply reversing the sexes seems like a bad idea to me.
Same old story and scenario, isn’t it Ally and damagedoor?
Pathetic…
Naw SP, you’ve got it wrong. The Ancient Greeks spent a whole lot of their time oppressing and enslaving women. That was the problem with them.
On the other hand political lesbians just want to get as far away from men as possible.
No comparison.
Opps, forgot about Ramiie too.
So, come on men – Ally damagedoor, Ramiie et al, where are you?
Letting the wimms defend you when you were so vocal only a few hours ago?
Cowards…
Lawdy Spacepenguin.
Can you not see the woods for the trees?
You say stuff that is just short of the logical conclusion, then STOP.
If you thought about it, how on earth are we anywhere near “reversing the sexes”? Men still rule. You still desire contact with them. Still bow to their authority. Still defend them against “attacks” by other women.
As I said, not every female born is automatically “a feminist”
And the opposite of The Patriarchy is NOT a matriachy (cue the really scary music)
delphyne:
I suspect the Ancient Greeks would happily have had nothing to do with women if they didn’t need to make more Ancient Greeks.
What they did was idealise everything male. From beauty to soul to intelligence male was the measure of all things. It is this that the idea of being woman centred conjures up for me.
“On the other hand political lesbians just want to get as far away from men as possible.”
If that is the sole goal of political lesbianism then I’m wrong about the comparison to Ancient Greece.
Of course women who are straight but don’t wish to associate with men are not suppressing anything by having nothing to do with them. If, however they actually want to be around men but choose not to then they are suppressing something about themselves for political reasons.
stormy:
Well I am male.
You’re right that political lesbianism is nowhere near reversing the sexes (in the context of an idealised sex), but that was what I assumed being woman centred meant. If I’m wrong then I apologise.
My favourite feminist is Jessica Valenti. [This comment has been edited]
ARF: objectification
And misplaced anyway. JV is FeministLite. At best!
I think you’re wrong SP. Ancient Greeks, like men in every patriarchal system since then enjoyed oppressing women – it was central to their culture and it went hand in hand with the adulation of all things male. Men like pushing women down. Look at the kicks some of them have been getting from trying to do it here.
Political lesbianism has nothing to do with oppression of men, it’s about refocusing our lives on women.
I would argue that women in het relationships spend a lot more time repressing parts of themselves than women who are free of men do. It’s certainly true of me.
This comment has been deleted.
Cath
angryradfem
Is also a silly angry man.
Spacepenguin, I admire you coming out as male, and you actually don’t seem quite as nutty as some of the previous commentors.
Here’s an admission: I don’t hate males. But I do hate that they make excuses for carrying on the status quo. (ZMOG, I can make intelligent conversation when I sense intelligent life out there, somewhere!)
I don’t suck up to males. That is always taken as hating every male on the planet. Nope. Just can’t stand those who make excuses. But I am a separatist.
SP, I sense that you have the potential to see things beyond the popular norm. Just look for it (nope, I don’t spoon feed).
With a little introspection, I think you can find it. Statements like “deying het women their sexual expression” relies on certain assumptions about the nature of sexuality, the nature of women, etc.
ZMOG, I did dabble in the spoon feeding! My manz-hating radfem creds are shot to hell…
Probably named James…
delphyne:
Certainly the Ancient Greeks despised women. But I think they male-worshipped more. In Sparta young males would dress their arranged spouses in a soldiers outfit and cut their hair to make them more male before they first had sex with them.
I can’t speak to your experience, I would say that there are women who have het relationships that, they feel, either doesn’t involve self-repression or not enough to make the alternative better for them.
Gee, isn’t that just like the internet, peeps pretending to be what they are not?
Angryradfem. Nice try. No Cigar.
SP, whoops, you just lost points.
Guestimating that some/majority/whatever women do not self-repress or lose themselves in het relationships.
And as a man, you cannot even begin to speculate.
SP it used to be pretty much mandatory for a woman to be owned by a man. Less than twenty years ago it was legal for you to rape us if we were married to one of you. If het relationships were natural as you seem to be arguing there wouldn’t have been so much force and coercion needed to make that happen. Women until very recently literally couldn’t survive without a man because of the way our economy and society were ordered and there is still huge social pressure for us to go into het relationships. We are offered virtually no alternative. I’m telling you I was an average het woman who never had any particularly bad relationships but I feel absolutely free away from them. I don’t think you should speak to any woman’s experience. Instead start talking about yourself and how it benefits you that women believe that they must be in a relationship with a man to be complete.
Just because Ancient Greek men enjoyed fucking one another doesn’t mean their enjoyment of oppressing women wasn’t equally strong. Oppressing women is central to masculine identity. Most men have no idea who they would be if they didn’t have women safely in second place to them. That’s why any hint of rebellion from women brings them down on us like screaming demons.
“Most men have no idea who they would be if they didn’t have women safely in second place to them. That’s why any hint of rebellion from women brings them down on us like screaming demons.”
As most demonstrated here today or CiF any day.
stormy:
I think a lot of male posters, and here my experience is entirely based on CiF, react defensively to allegations of privilege because it is not consciously felt. That is when a male, say, talks over a woman it is often not a concious act of power, it is the normal way men talk to each other. It simply doesn’t occur to them that the woman isn’t responding in kind because of the different ways men and women are raised. Thus allegations of privileged simply sound like excuses.
Then again there is the other type that would talk over a woman because they feel their status is threatened by a woman having an equal share in a conversation.
I would say that sexuality is a difficult thing to pin down. Certainly straight people have homosexual experiences and vice versa, however cutting off one avenue of sexual expression for political reasons, if that is an avenue you like, seems like repression to me. Of course if what you gain is more than what you lose it would be worth it.
…….
I can’t speculate on anyone’s subjective experience, but if it wasn’t the case that at least some het relationships don’t involve self-repression, or at least a tolerable amount for what you gain, why would there be any feminists in het relationships? I’m trying to get to things empirically, so we have a common point of reference.
delphyne:
I think both het and same-sex relationships are natural, a glance at nature confirms as much. I am thinking about how it benefits me that woman feel they need to be in a relationship…
“Oppressing women is central to masculine identity. Most men have no idea who they would be if they didn’t have women safely in second place to them.”
But how can you speak to a man’s experience? Isn’t it better to argue on common ground rather than trying to own another’s subjective experience, which you and stormy both rightly object to.
You haven’t addressed anything I said there SP, apart from one thing which I said earlier about women’s experiences that you’ve twisted in a weasely manner, so I’m just going to repeat what I said and see if you can actually address the facts that I used to back up my argument:
“SP it used to be pretty much mandatory for a woman to be owned by a man. Less than twenty years ago it was legal for you to rape us if we were married to one of you. If het relationships were natural as you seem to be arguing there wouldn’t have been so much force and coercion needed to make that happen. Women until very recently literally couldn’t survive without a man because of the way our economy and society were ordered and there is still huge social pressure for us to go into het relationships. We are offered virtually no alternative. I’m telling you I was an average het woman who never had any particularly bad relationships but I feel absolutely free away from them. I don’t think you should speak to any woman’s experience. Instead start talking about yourself and how it benefits you that women believe that they must be in a relationship with a man to be complete.
Just because Ancient Greek men enjoyed fucking one another doesn’t mean their enjoyment of oppressing women wasn’t equally strong. Oppressing women is central to masculine identity. Most men have no idea who they would be if they didn’t have women safely in second place to them. That’s why any hint of rebellion from women brings them down on us like screaming demons.”
Just to be clear I don’t think you get to decide what women’s experience is or pretend you are some kind of expert in it. On the other hand talking about men’s motivation to oppress women is reasonable and in fact essential if women are going to defeat male supremacy.
delphyne:
I’m sorry if you thought I didn’t address your argument, I thought the main thrust of it was that het relationships aren’t natural. If that is so I disagree because het sexual attraction (as well as same-sex) is a constant in every species that requires two sexes for reproduction.
…..
I don’t claim to be able to decide what women’s experience is, I am drawing an inference based on what women do. Is that not what you are doing when you talk about men’s motivations?
AllyF has in his seven posts gone from:
Right, I’ll back away now and leave you in peace! A x (kiss)
to
“and it is seriously fucking insulting to suggest that I did”
The man invades your blog, comes across as a know-it-all intellectual coming to teach the poor residents some high level sociological theory, and ends up acting like an abusive husband.
He then goes back to his fan club on CiF and says “I left a couple of friendly (if questioning) comments on Cath’s own blog this week.”
The man isn’t friendly, he’s dominating and a past master at disassociation, as sparklematrix so brilliantly describes.
JayReilly is another very mixed up man.
In four posts he went from “well done on setting up the blog cath, looks to be quite popular”, to “I am an ardent feminist myself” to “Seems more a backslapping club for bitter feminists”.
I really loved delphyne’s question:
“Did the misogynists manage to climb over the wall and escape from CiF? It seems like there has been a mass
breakout.”
Soooo….what was this post about again?
“Soooo….what was this post about again?”
Err – violence against women, or something?
…but it didn’t involve talking about men and some folks got a tad twitched.
Ok I gave up on this thread sometime ago. Anyone who thinks that my remark to Ally is ‘one of the nastiest things they’ve ever read’ should get out more. I thought you were all from CiF? Sensitive souls aren’t you?
My point was that Ally seemed to want some kind of medal for doing something that any normal human being would do. Oh look at me! I helps the
Ally if you are supposedly in love with someone and think it’s a major concession to help her when she’s been the victim of a horrible crime, that’s the nastiest thing I’ve ever read actually.
Oh look at me- a Rad Fem being nasty to the poor helpless menz!
Sorry got cut off in the middle of a sentence. Should read “Look at me! I helps the poor ickle raped wimmin!”
Because that is what Ally’s patronising bigging up of himself as a philanthropist amounts to.
not to mention half-outing a couple of women abuse survivors (who named or unnamed could probably be identified by people who know ally) to a bunch of people on the internet to try and prove a point that he really is a living specimen of nice-guy-ness.
Good point V. It’s really great to tell the world (or at least bits of the internetz) your girlfriend was raped when you’ve got your pic on a National newspaper’s website.
What a considerate man you are Ally.
PS you have to be really desperate for male approval to seek it on CiF.
delphyne said: ““Do you think we don’t hear your discussions, that we aren’t aware of your motives for letting us cry on your shoulders about our rapes and other experiences of violence at the hands of your fellow men?”
Yes this is it, v. We women all know this, we’ve experienced it, we’ve seen it but we aren’t allowed to talk about it and we certainly aren’t allowed to challenge any man about this kind of behaviour, either his own or that of his peers.”
I suspect I’m about to get accused of being some kind of collaborator, but I can’t resist commenting.
I am AllyF’s female partner. We’ve been together for 14 years. We have children together.
I am also a feminist. What do I mean by that? I mean that I am a strong, political, passionate woman who believes that women are as good as men, that women get a raw deal in society as a result of sexism and misogyny, and if I had it my way society would look very different, and women would have genuinely equal opportunities and status.
However, I don’t believe that all men are sexist, and I don’t believe that all men are responsible for the shit that women experience.
For what it’s worth, AllyF is one of the most gentle, sensitive, non-sexist, non-misogynist and genuinely lovely men I know. You can disbelieve me if you like, but I think I’m uniquely qualified to comment. And no, he has never been even slightly violent towards me or anyone else.
Of course, you can choose to tell me that I am in denial, or that Ally is only nice to me cos he wants to get into my knickers (ha! if only life with kids were that rosy). It would be hard for me to argue against that, except to say the following:
Human beings are all capable of both good and bad behaviour. Men are capable of altriusm, the vast majority of men have people they genuinely care about and want good things for, and will help even if they get nothing in return. Human beings are like that. Thank fuck.
OK, so you may choose to believe that all men, that is to say approximately 50% of the human race, are incapable of genuine love, or of selfless behaviour.
In which case… you’re basically fucked, surely? Feminism is a lost cause. There’s no way you’re ever going to defeat 50% of the human race. Your best bet is to retire to a desert island with some of your sisters and surround the whole thing with guns and barbed wire.
Then again, you could choose to notice that there are some decent blokes out there who also get angry about the way women are treated, and want to do something about it. What is amazing is that some of you seem incapable of seeing that Ally is one of these blokes.
For the sake of argument, let’s imagine such a creature might exist. A man who wants to end sexism, misogyny, violence against women… just because he’s a decent sort and thinks that such things are appalling. But he then gets accused of being all the things he hates… and gets a bit upset about such accusations. Understandable, no?
*cough* good heavens Clare, so much straw, it’s an upper-respiratory hazard. Not to mention – fire.
Hey Clare
Been meaning to tell you – I love your blog (and good luck on Countdown!)
Haha, thanks Cath!
Came across this interesting but also, at times, distressingly vitriolic blog. Three questions, asked out of sincere interest and not in a loaded way:
1. The two women I’ve known longest are, I guess, my mother and sister. When it comes to issues relating to ‘feminism’ (meant very broadly and vaguely), I’m under the impression that I’ve got more of a conscious interest in ‘feminism’ than either of them, though this interest is strongly related to the necessity of reading some feminist history and women’s history (not the same thing, I guess) given what I study. I do not, for various reasons (ranging from the staggering and radical difference among ‘feminists’ to giving offence to others) identify with this or that feminism. If you like, it’s a bit of an armchair interest.
What I’m fumbling at is…it’s not uncommonly noted that some contemporary discourse and even activism which is understood as ‘feminism’ fails to attract or interest a large number of women. It seems to me that my sister and mother are good examples. Not only fails to attract, but fails to even register with them. This point can be made polemically, as if to say, ‘see, it’s a load of crap’. Don’t mean it like that.
Rather, why might this be so (if so, of course)? And how important is it for this or that feminism to be able to account for and engage with this in a convincing way? How important, both practically and theoretically?
2. How do men fit into a strong (for want of a better term) difference feminism? Is it possible for any rapprochement, or is this out of the question altogether?
3. Oops. The third question is, why did I write three questions when I only had two?
“When my female best friend, rape and abuse survivor and self-harmer calls me up at 3am to go round and wrap her up in towels to stop her from bleeding to death before the ambulance gets there, that’s to my benefit?”
I would have sent the ambulance, it would be there before me.
Gregory
“A pattern of systematically ignoring and denying female violence against males, female violence against females, female violence against children etc etc.”
Do the emergency room test.
Until you Brits work out how you are policed, I mean *how* as in *now*, as opposed to the future, you are never going to understand the issues.
“We need to break all cycles of abuse – between men and men, parents and children – if we are to protect abused women”
That was risible, laughably so. Also impossibly arrogant by my reading of it.
So 9/10 for patriarchal tosh.
Gregory
“We need to break all cycles of abuse – between men and men, parents and children – if we are to protect abused women”
I actually agree with this. My abusive ex-partner was himself abused physically by his parents. His mother was often the instigator of the violence, and told his father exactly what to do to him (his mother was disabled in later years and couldn’t do it herself).
He grew up despising his mother. It was obvious to me he had issues with women because of this.
Christ, this really has spiralled. As to any ‘sucking up’ from kiz to ally, or ally to cath, or kis to cath, whatever, had it not occurred to you that perhaps they are sort of ‘friends’ (in the online sense of the term)? Is being nice such a crime round here?
I suppose the mistake has really been us ciffers for assuming that this blog was intended for debate. It clearly isnt. Or rather it is on the proviso that your views fit within a very obtuse spectrum. Those people that have strayed outside have received your venom and slander, and in all honesty i have seen far more unpleasantness on this thread alone than any cif thread.
We discussed this a bit on cif, someone made the very good point that it is nice to have somewhere to go and let off steam without people challenging you, which i agree with, and thats clearly what this is, which is fine. But maybe you folk should remember that some people spend a lot of time on cif and other sites where the whole focus is debate, and when they go to other sites they are likely to still want to debate by habit, they are not intentionally trying to stir things up or preach to people. Kiz, Ally and Montana are all quite capable of debating with anyone, they dont abuse people who disagree with them either, same with Cath (thats why we came to see her blog).
Gregory – you sound mightily impressive. And from which country are you lavishing us with this wisdom?
“Opps, forgot about Ramiie too.
So, come on men – Ally damagedoor, Ramiie et al, where are you?
Letting the wimms defend you when you were so vocal only a few hours ago?
Cowards…”
I cant speak for the others but i was at home – it was the weekend. Sorry to disappoint. For anyone under the impression they had driven off the nasty menz and female traitors with their feisty radfem polemic, apologies.
Well, I just couldn’t be arsed. This thread has achieved absolutely nothing – beyond alienating a number of reasonable, intelligent, amiable people – and I don’t think it would have achieved anything more if it had been left to Stormy, Polly and the rest. Sad, really.
I also refuse to accept the premise behind the “Letting the wimms defend you” rubbish. The argument is the argument; it doesn’t become more or less valid because of the gender of the person typing it. I would have thought the only division that matters in a discussion is between those who are prepared to state their position, listen, consider, and possibly change their mind, and those who literally can’t even conceive of being wrong, never mind grit their teeth and admit it out loud. But no. It’s actually just about dicks.
Also over from CiF, and without wanting to stir things up any more, I have to say that I think it’s massively disingenuous for JayReilly in particular to come over here and pretend he is interested in a debate, without ‘fessing up – as he is always proud to do on CiF – how much he hates feminists.
By talking about ‘debate’, Jay implies that he would have been ready to listen to the feminist viewpoint and judge it on its merits. Well, having debated several times with Jay, only to be told all about the problems with feminists, which unsurprisingly turn out to be along the lines of hating men etc etc ad nauseam, that implication is simply untrue. Jay is not interested in dialogue with feminists, he simply wants them to know they’re wrong.
So much so, in fact, that on one CiF thread where I commented strongly but civilly to Jay, and he replied with an angry tirade about feminism, my Nigel (who is known to be male) went on and replied to him quite rudely. Both N and I found it highly amusing that Jay responded to N’s rudeness with far more courtesy and attention to what was written, than he did to my civility.
“ay is not interested in dialogue with feminists, he simply wants them to know they’re wrong.”
Its probably the case that you were talking sh*t. As i’ve said, i have agreed with and happily debated feminists many times, i do almost every day. Funnily enough some feminists i have interesting debates with and some not. Maybe its not ‘feminist’ but the type of feminist that determines my civility. Wacky idea i know.
This comment has been deleted
Cath
Yup that’s it Christonabike of course! I was destined to be a good little fembot, and then I came across a feminist bookshop and was brainwashed by Andrea Dworkin.
I’m very in touch with reality actually. Which is that a substantial portion of men are abusive arseholes. And I’ve known that since I was too young to read.
Unfortunately however some of my fellow evoldoers have already got kids.Thorry.
Here he is.
But now nobody knows what I’m on about…..Awww he made me laugh. And I like the idea of “Menfuckoffland” very much. In fact I’ve just made a UDI and annexed the area north of Birmingham.
Ok ok, here’s that post again from Christonabike:
“Lol you are a weird lot, don’t you see how out of touch you are with reality?
Talk about overdosed on ideology.
If you despise men so much, why don’t you all pool resources, buy an island, name it “Menfuckoffland” and take your hate with you to die out when the last of you croaks.
Would benefit all of us nicely.”
Now everyone can point and laugh at him.
Lol, well…
I see happy people all around me, living their lives not hating the opposite sex and just enjoying life.
You see the boogeyman in all men, demonise them and try to make us all feel like we are bad people. I mean, wtf was with the comment to Ally F or whatever about him helping her so he could fuck her? Who the hell thinks like that? I pity you for your hatred.
Sure, some men are bad people-who would dispute that? But the overwhelming majority are just trying to get through this trip called ‘life’, raise a family or not,work, grow old and not hurt anyone.
We don’t deserve to be treated like animals for the actions of relatively few, any more than women should be.
I wish no one harm and I hope you can all one day renounce extremism, all it does is hinder social progress.
Peace, Jamie.
Ally F stated that his only reason for helping his partner get over rape was completely altruistic and it wasn’t to his benefit at all.
Being a student of philosophy, I pointed out that there is no such thing as a completely altruistic act, and Ally F is not the saintlike figure he claims to be. But at least you got put back because of my pleadings Christonabike so don’t whinge too much. I believe in free speech even for the logically challenged.
And I don’t give a shit what you think. Thorry.
And for all those who believe that men are altruistic, if you’re a youngish non childcaring woman try this experiment.
In normal life you probably find that quite often men will leap to “help” you and open doors for you, which can be quite irritating. Since you are perfectly capable of opening them for yourself.
Now borrow a small child in a pushchair. See how the ‘helpful’ men vanish completely.
Altruism? Bollocks.
“Lets talk about male violence against women”
“Why do you hate men?”
Excellent experiment polly.
Variation could be to push christonabike in the pushchair. Result likely to be the same.
Who the fuck puts the word life in single scare quotes?
Well without trying to draw a halo on my head, I tend to help anyone with a door, I think it was how I was brought up though. I paid for a man today on the bus because he only had a $100 note and the driver wouldn’t take it, altruism is out there!
I make it a point not to patronise women, I can understand totally that they are capable of anything I can do. Of course I can’t see the world through the lens of women and you probably would mock my efforts to try but I have read some femminist theory and much of it makes sense to me. My girlfriend and I have had many discussions re gender and she respects my opinions, and she is in no way a ‘collaborator’ because she loves and wants to be with me, I respect her utterly as a fellow human.
As I have educated myself, and by turns been educated the more I have come to see that women do suffer by society tacitly supporting sexism, but what is to be gained by being so blinded by anger towards men? By far the best way to a truly equal society is education and more education imo. Teach young men that women are to be respected as equals, continue to make rape, DV and other behaviours socially unnacceptable not just illegal and sexism will wither away.
Sexism is ultimately a fundamentally silly relic but I don’t see how trying to ‘out hate’ the haters is helping.
P.S I appologise for my anger in previous posts, a couple of comments got my Irish up.
Peace, Jamie.
As to that comment re talking about male violence to women, I was never saying anything about that, and I for one would never, ever try to stifle such a conversation, it’s massively important, yes even to many men.
I am NOT a tolerator of DV.
The only reason I entered this thread because of unneeded and cruel comments to one or two well meaning men. I understand anger can burn white hot but they were some unnecessary things said.
Polly purely addressed and quite rightly so, the unlikely event of truly altruistic behaviour. Or, in other words, and using a Transactional analysis – each game has a payoff for those playing it.
To which you retaliated with furious hyperbole served to quieten what you experience as female fury. Interestingly, it is not our anger or fury that causes you or other men to alter your lives; it’s also not our anger or fury that subjugates half of the Earth’s inhabitants.
“Tell me how you feel but don’t say it too harshly or I cannot hear you.” But is it my manner that keeps her from hearing, or the threat of a message that her life may change? ~ Audre Lorde
“As I have educated myself, and by turns been educated the more I have come to see that women do suffer by society tacitly supporting sexism, but what is to be gained by being so blinded by anger towards men?”
Translation:
Men (like me!) who recognise that sexism exists are – as in all things – guided by cool, unemotional logic. Not only that, I deserve a cookie for my empathisin’ skillz.
Women who recognises that sexism exists are hysterical harpies.
What Vera Baird and Jacqui Smith, in the same room, forget it, just move on, it’s a another lie, a stunt, a gimmick.
Why are you writing about another nu-labor scam?
Is Vera Baird involved? If the answer is yes, then file to tradsh and move on.
Is it a Jacqui Smith gig, knife wielding thugs to visit victims in hospital?
Just move on.
Harriet Harman? She is on a lower level then Douglas Fox. In other words, I’d rather be stuck in a lift with Mr. Fox than Ms Harman.
Tazia