You'll note I already acknowledged that this issue is complex and multifaceted, far from being as simple as "He hated women so he shot up the place." I've been kind of thinking about it like misogyny relates to Rodgers in the way Western cultural norms for women's bodies relates to anorexia nervosa: on the one hand you have some individuals likely already prone to a pattern of destructive thinking-- anxiety, depression, perfectionism, socially maladapted, etc-- and on the other you have an overarching culture handing them (and everyone) certain messages about society and how they ought to operate with in it. It is the individual's proclivities lead them to internalize these cultural messages in a much more extreme fashion than a typical person would and they behave atypically compared to the rest of society-- they are outliers-- but it is nevertheless the cultural messages that influence their behavior in specific ways. And while everyone else in society may not respond in such an extreme fashion, we are still being affected by these messages, too, probably much more than we realize. That's where #YesAllWomen comes in. The discussion isn't about 100% pigeonholing the shooter's motivations, so much as bringing to light just how damaging that particular aspect of his motivations is to society on the whole.
A lot of men's rights issues are issues with the same patriarchy and toxic ideas about men vs. women's roles in society than feminism is also trying to disassemble. (Though how successfully is up for debate; feminism is not a united bloc and there are a lot intersecting voices and conflict about what feminism is or ought to address. See, for example, the thread about race vs. feminism a few comments below). It's not just the dominant voices of the MRA movement that are problematic, but the idea that men's social issues and women's social issues ought to be addressed separately in the first place-- even pitted in direct opposition to each other. I'm a feminist who, for example, believes men should have equal standing in custody cases and can and should be taken seriously as nurturers and caretakers to the same level that women are. This should not be seen as oxymoronic, but a lot of people continue to think feminism = always assuming the worst of men.
I see your point about resistance being strongest when the old ways are dying, though-- and I really hope you are right S:
However, it does seem that to admit that women earn $.75 for every dollar men earn is fairly mainstream, but to say something like "hey, let's build a men's abuse center" is a radical thing. Is it? I dunno, I've seen an awful lot of people claiming that women aren't paid less than men, and no-one objecting to the idea of building a men's abuse centre, but that's just my personal experience. I _have_ seen a lot of men insisting that women should build men's abuse centres, but making no effort to get involved themselves, which is obviously problematic.
This is why I've said that Fourth-wave feminism needs to focus on men. But why is that a job for feminism?
male privilege is reeking through many of your comments here. and for a person who says he's a feminist, maybe - just maybe - you could take a step far enough back to see how they also seem to be co-opting this post about the "yesallwomen" hash tag into another discussion of "but what about the men?"
But still, if you go on a morning news show and say ".75 to $1" people aren't going to jump your shit about it, save for a few uber-right wackjobs... maybe... Yeah, actually, they will.
Well of course not, men aren't abused, right? I feel like this is a response to a comment I didn't make, and not the bit you quoted.
And who is saying that WOMEN should build men's abuse centers? MRAs; their line, actually, sounds very like yours, as it is the idea that it is the job of feminism to address men's issues.
But why is that a job for feminism? ...remind me again, which intellectual and philosophical group was the one based on studying the power imbalances between the genders? That would be gender studies. Feminism is about addressing the inequalities faced by women.
I'm sorry but why should fourth wave feminism focus on men? Because feminism is a group based on studying the power imbalances between genders?
Wrong. Feminism was founded on the idea of creating a power balance and equality between the genders. We are still not there yet, so why should we focus on men-who are still more powerful and privileged than women?
I agree with noodledays that many of your comments are dripping with male privilege.
"One in three victims of domestic violence is male" That's only true if your metric is "People who have ever experienced one or more instances of domestic abuse". So if a guy has _once_ been hit by a partner, he counts. But if you look at instances, rather than individuals, the victims are _overwhelmingly_ female.
Not quite accurate. If a guy has _once_ reported being hit by a partner, he counts. Where are you getting that from? The website you've linked to says that _up_ to one in three victims _may_ be male, but doesn't elaborate where those figures come from or how they're measuring. I don't know where WebMD gets its figures from, but they're not borne out by the figures from the Bureau of Justice, which suggest that 15% of domestic violence victims are men and 85% are women, and that around 960,000 incidents are reported per annum. That obviously only includes reported crime, but various studies suggest that while there is certainly under-reporting across the board, reporting rates don't differ between men and women. I'm inclined to believe the stats from the DOJ rather than unreferenced numbers from webMD. If you can find me a source for the figure WebMD cites, we can talk about it, but as long as it's both unreferenced and unsupported, I'll go with official figures.
A lot of men's rights issues are issues with the same patriarchy and toxic ideas about men vs. women's roles in society than feminism is also trying to disassemble. (Though how successfully is up for debate; feminism is not a united bloc and there are a lot intersecting voices and conflict about what feminism is or ought to address. See, for example, the thread about race vs. feminism a few comments below). It's not just the dominant voices of the MRA movement that are problematic, but the idea that men's social issues and women's social issues ought to be addressed separately in the first place-- even pitted in direct opposition to each other. I'm a feminist who, for example, believes men should have equal standing in custody cases and can and should be taken seriously as nurturers and caretakers to the same level that women are. This should not be seen as oxymoronic, but a lot of people continue to think feminism = always assuming the worst of men.
I see your point about resistance being strongest when the old ways are dying, though-- and I really hope you are right S:
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Is it? I dunno, I've seen an awful lot of people claiming that women aren't paid less than men, and no-one objecting to the idea of building a men's abuse centre, but that's just my personal experience. I _have_ seen a lot of men insisting that women should build men's abuse centres, but making no effort to get involved themselves, which is obviously problematic.
This is why I've said that Fourth-wave feminism needs to focus on men.
But why is that a job for feminism?
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
Yeah, actually, they will.
Well of course not, men aren't abused, right?
I feel like this is a response to a comment I didn't make, and not the bit you quoted.
And who is saying that WOMEN should build men's abuse centers?
MRAs; their line, actually, sounds very like yours, as it is the idea that it is the job of feminism to address men's issues.
But why is that a job for feminism?
...remind me again, which intellectual and philosophical group was the one based on studying the power imbalances between the genders?
That would be gender studies. Feminism is about addressing the inequalities faced by women.
Reply
Wrong. Feminism was founded on the idea of creating a power balance and equality between the genders. We are still not there yet, so why should we focus on men-who are still more powerful and privileged than women?
I agree with noodledays that many of your comments are dripping with male privilege.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
(The comment has been removed)
That's only true if your metric is "People who have ever experienced one or more instances of domestic abuse". So if a guy has _once_ been hit by a partner, he counts. But if you look at instances, rather than individuals, the victims are _overwhelmingly_ female.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Where are you getting that from? The website you've linked to says that _up_ to one in three victims _may_ be male, but doesn't elaborate where those figures come from or how they're measuring.
I don't know where WebMD gets its figures from, but they're not borne out by the figures from the Bureau of Justice, which suggest that 15% of domestic violence victims are men and 85% are women, and that around 960,000 incidents are reported per annum. That obviously only includes reported crime, but various studies suggest that while there is certainly under-reporting across the board, reporting rates don't differ between men and women. I'm inclined to believe the stats from the DOJ rather than unreferenced numbers from webMD.
If you can find me a source for the figure WebMD cites, we can talk about it, but as long as it's both unreferenced and unsupported, I'll go with official figures.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
Leave a comment