Feminism and violence again women

[Pickman's model]

I think there were other factors at play, not least a lot of people had been brought up with violent Dads, and violence towards kids was also becoming less normalised and publicly acceptable. But I don't think it's rose tinted to suggest that working class women played a significant role in changing attitudes towards domestic violence in working class communities throughout the last century even if the problem remains endemic and horrifying.

i wonder to what extent the prevalence of domestic violence differs between different sorts of family structure - whether there's less among extended families or kinship networks who live nearby each other, or more among nuclear families who have few or no nearby relatives (which is what i'd suspect on my gut instinct): and whether there is more in places where families haven't lived long (eg the new towns in their early decades) in comparison to families with long established links to an area.

i don't know: and i don't expect an answer, just throwing it out there as a couple of possible factors which may affect dv

 

[friendofdorothy]

i wonder to what extent the prevalence of domestic violence differs between different sorts of family structure - whether there's less among extended families or kinship networks who live nearby each other, or more among nuclear families who have few or no nearby relatives (which is what i'd suspect on my gut instinct): and whether there is more in places where families haven't lived long (eg the new towns in their early decades) in comparison to families with long established links to an area.

i don't know: and i don't expect an answer, just throwing it out there as a couple of possible factors which may affect dv

certainly cutting a partner off from the support of friends and family is a tactic of coercive control.

 

[smokedout]

certainly cutting a partner off from the support of friends and family is a tactic of coercive control.

I read recently that one of the problems historically about women using what limited structures there were to leave a violent husband or bring a prosecution was that it would leave her and the kids with no means of financial support. Even with the advent of social security that is still built in - the idea that should a woman live with a new partner, or he stays enough times a week that the DWP decide she is living with him then she must immediately become economically dependent on him or be accused of benefit fraud. And that's been excerbated by the change that means Universal Credit now all goes just one member of the household rather than benefits being split between couples as they often were before. I don't really think we've seen the full impact of that yet but it's hard to imagine a change more likely to entrench coercive control in abusive relationships.

 

[Pickman's model]

certainly cutting a partner off from the support of friends and family is a tactic of coercive control.

that's not quite what i meant, i wasn't thinking of those sorts of situations which would obviously raise concerns: but if some of the changes which have been forced on people in the last hundred years in the various phases of slum clearance or after bomb damage in london and the consequent decanting of people from those communities had had an effect on the incidence of dv, if couples or families with extended families or kinship networks nearby experienced a lesser chance of dv than nuclear families who - for whatever reason - had moved to the new towns, it's more that i wondered about, the extent to which support networks for men and women might affect the level of domestic violence.

 

[ElizabethofYork]

Part of the same thing that male violence against women is part of. That being what we collectively understand it to mean to be “a woman” and “a man” and how these constructed meanings interrelate with each other.

My point is that while you can hive off bits of the implications of that meaning-making to try to gain greater resolution, in doing so it’s easy to miss the interactions that are just as important to the totality

I've read this several times now and still have absolutely no idea what you're saying. Sorry! Could you simplify it a bit?

 

[Pickman's model]

I've read this several times now and still have absolutely no idea what you're saying. Sorry! Could you simplify it a bit?

he's drunk deep at the fountain of unintelligibility

 

[Pickman's model]

I've read this several times now and still have absolutely no idea what you're saying. Sorry! Could you simplify it a bit?

and it's not so much simplification you want so much as some actual meaning in there

 

[ElizabethofYork]

and it's not so much simplification you want so much as some actual meaning in there

I was being polite.

Assertive, you see, rather than aggressive

 

[Dystopiary]

I read recently that one of the problems historically about women using what limited structures there were to leave a violent husband or bring a prosecution was that it would leave her and the kids with no means of financial support. Even with the advent of social security that is still built in - the idea that should a woman live with a new partner, or he stays enough times a week that the DWP decide she is living with him then she must immediately become economically dependent on him or be accused of benefit fraud. And that's been excerbated by the change that means Universal Credit now all goes just one member of the household rather than benefits being split between couples as they often were before. I don't really think we've seen the full impact of that yet but it's hard to imagine a change more likely to entrench coercive control in abusive relationships.

Yes. The BBC did an article on this last year.

Disability, Benefits and Unhealthy Relationships

Benefits and disability: 'I'll never cohabit again, to protect myself'

 

[kabbes]

I thought my niece was brought up to be assertive, being surrounded by assertive female role models - but it hasn't saved her from men's sexual violence, which saddens and horrifies me.

That’s what I mean when I say it’s all part of the same thing. You can’t meaningfully pick just one piece out of the puzzle and try to make a single individual “more assertive”. The behaviours of the individual are embedded into social situations, directed towards other subjectively conscious entities with their own understanding of what those behaviours mean in that context. You need the people around you to be respectful of your assertiveness in order for the assertiveness to mean anything.

I am aware that to some degree I’m arguing against my own earlier point, here. I’m comfortable with that — this is messy stuff!

 

[kabbes]

I've read this several times now and still have absolutely no idea what you're saying. Sorry! Could you simplify it a bit?

Sorry. I’m just saying this:

you can only talk in a limited way about what being a “woman” means

unless

you also take account of its conceptual inverse (ie, in a simplistic way, what being a “man” means)

and

the relationship between these things.

“Being a woman” is not something that exists in an abstract sense outside the context of the rest of society. It’s completely embedded in that society. Trying to understand it context-free will be limited at best.

 

[ElizabethofYork]

Sorry. I’m just saying this:

you can only talk in a limited way about what being a “woman” means

unless

you also take account of its conceptual inverse (ie, in a simplistic way, what being a “man” means)

and

the relationship between these things.

“Being a woman” is not something that exists in an abstract sense outside the context of the rest of society. It’s completely embedded in that society. Trying to understand it context-free will be limited at best.

wibble.

 

[kabbes]

wibble.

To make it more concrete: look at my response before that one about assertiveness. You can teach “assertiveness skills” all you like but for them to have an impact, those around you have to be willing to accommodate your assertiveness.

 

[Oula]

My dad often says to me that he wishes I could teach him how to be assertive. He feels that I am assertive, in contrast to him being aggressive. My husband thinks I'm aggressive. My dad grew up in a Greek household with lots of rows and shouting. My husband grew up in an Indian household where conflict was avoided more, then went to boarding school. It seems to me that the family situations and cultures they grew up in affect how they view my behaviour.
Also, I row with my husband more.

 

[kabbes]

a Greek household with lots of rows and shouting.

Or, to put it another way, “a Greek household”.

 

[Oula]

Or, to put it another way, “a Greek household”.

Oh yes. The first time my mum went round for dinner she had to contend with attempting to eat spaghetti for the first time ever while my dad and grandma had a screaming row about religion. With my grandma turning to her every few minutes to ask why she wasn't eating more.

 

[Fozzie Bear]

I read recently that one of the problems historically about women using what limited structures there were to leave a violent husband or bring a prosecution was that it would leave her and the kids with no means of financial support. Even with the advent of social security that is still built in - the idea that should a woman live with a new partner, or he stays enough times a week that the DWP decide she is living with him then she must immediately become economically dependent on him or be accused of benefit fraud. And that's been excerbated by the change that means Universal Credit now all goes just one member of the household rather than benefits being split between couples as they often were before. I don't really think we've seen the full impact of that yet but it's hard to imagine a change more likely to entrench coercive control in abusive relationships.

This reminded me of an article I once read about "Pick Up Artists" who are men (of course they are) that treat chatting up women and getting them into bed like a sport basically. And there is a whole subculture around that which is pretty sad and will probably not surprise anyone here.

Anyway, to cut a long story short, one of these pathetic grifters went to Denmark and found that his shit simply did not work there at all. The reasons mentioned are that Denmark is more equal and has better support systems for women, than most other places.

So I think that maybe shows what can be done. It's just how to get there...

Actually here it is - the language is very "laddish" and obviously it is all the fault of the women for not being "real women".

Cockblocked by Redistribution: A Pick-up Artist in Denmark - Dissent Magazine

As infamous pick-up artist Roosh himself admits in "Don’t Bang Denmark," Nordic social democracy doesn’t support his kind.

www.dissentmagazine.org

Roosh comes to the conclusion that women who aren’t as dependent on men for financial support are not susceptible to the narcissistic salesmanship that constitutes phase one: “attraction.” That’s why Roosh fails to advance to the second level—”trust”—without being creepy. Thus “seduction” is almost always out of the question.

 

[Red Cat]

Sure, you may not care but get a reputation at work (for example) of being aggressive and watch just how fast you're bypassed/not invited to meetings you should be etc.

Well, it was in some ways a flippant comment, but in relation to myself, I am less bothered about what others think of me than I used to be, and is one of the advantages of middle age.

 

[bellaozzydog]

Sorry. I’m just saying this:

you can only talk in a limited way about what being a “woman” means

unless

you also take account of its conceptual inverse (ie, in a simplistic way, what being a “man” means)

and

the relationship between these things.

“Being a woman” is not something that exists in an abstract sense outside the context of the rest of society. It’s completely embedded in that society. Trying to understand it context-free will be limited at best.

Lorem Ipsum?

 

[friendofdorothy]

That’s what I mean when I say it’s all part of the same thing. You can’t meaningfully pick just one piece out of the puzzle and try to make a single individual “more assertive”. The behaviours of the individual are embedded into social situations, directed towards other subjectively conscious entities with their own understanding of what those behaviours mean in that context. You need the people around you to be respectful of your assertiveness in order for the assertiveness to mean anything.

I am aware that to some degree I’m arguing against my own earlier point, here. I’m comfortable with that — this is messy stuff!

by that argument you can't meaningfully teach an thing and life is too complicated to change anything. In the context of this thread that isn't helpful.

I was being polite.

Assertive, you see, rather than aggressive

Polite yes but you apologised! - he seemed to be saying what you had just said only with a lot more words and a lot less clarity. As you said - Wibble.

 

[friendofdorothy]

“Being a woman” is not something that exists in an abstract sense outside the context of the rest of society. It’s completely embedded in that society. Trying to understand it context-free will be limited at best.

Being a woman is not just an abstract concept - it is a lived reality. I live 'embedded' in society and have been brought up with all the limited expectations and all the educational, social and legal restrictions that has entailed. The laws that enshrined the gender binary have changed in my younger days - but I see gender imbalance is still very much with us.

I have 60 years of lived experience of watchig what 'being male' means in that particular context. From male violence being encouraged, acceptable and ubiquitous. It was public debate that women didn't need independence, that we didn't need or deserve equal pay, That the idea of 'women's lib' was a joke to be ridiculed. That domestic violence wasn't serious, that sexual abuse of children didn't exist, that feminists were exaggerating and making this stuff up. That being groped was to be expected. That it was a woman's role not to encourage male advances and that if rape happened it was the woman's behaviour would be scrutanised. That married women couldn't say 'no' to sex with their husbands because that was his conjugal right.

That is the context in which I have lived, and so I don't think my understanding of MV is limited.

 

[Red Cat]

He's saying something about masculinity and femininity i.e. gender and how they are constructed in opposition to each other and if you are able to change one then you forcibly change the other because they are created together, or not. The example given of assertiveness was that we women could learn how to be more assertive but that won't change much if that assertion continues to be experienced as aggression through the current prism of masculinity and femininity where men are permitted to be aggressive in work life and women aren't. There's no point changing a few notes in your new interpretation of a song if your audience is hearing impaired.

 

[Pickman's model]

Sorry. I’m just saying this:

you can only talk in a limited way about what being a “woman” means

unless

you also take account of its conceptual inverse (ie, in a simplistic way, what being a “man” means)

and

the relationship between these things.

“Being a woman” is not something that exists in an abstract sense outside the context of the rest of society. It’s completely embedded in that society. Trying to understand it context-free will be limited at best.

When you read this back to yourself, with your zero experience of being a woman, do you think you could consider what it's like actually being a woman and having a man tell you what you can and cannot say about being a woman and what you've got to take into account (ie men) to give it meaning?

 

[Red Cat]

Surely 'being a woman' is meaningful only in contrast to the meaning of 'being a man' otherwise it would simply be being a human.

 

[Pickman's model]

Surely 'being a woman' is meaningful only in contrast to the meaning of 'being a man' otherwise it would simply be being a human.

I don't think being a man is only meaningful in contrast to being a woman. I'd contrast it to being a boy, for a start. The experience of being a boy, or a man, differs from that of being a girl or a woman in a range of ways which seem to me not all to rely on comparison to the opposite sex.

 

[Red Cat]

I don't think being a man is only meaningful in contrast to being a woman. I'd contrast it to being a boy, for a start. The experience of being a boy, or a man, differs from that of being a girl or a woman in a range of ways which seem to me not all to rely on comparison to the opposite sex.

Sure, but being a boy and being a girl are also oppositions, and children and women are also very often identified, we are frequently infantilised, deemed irrational etc.

 

[cesare]

I don't think being a man is only meaningful in contrast to being a woman. I'd contrast it to being a boy, for a start. The experience of being a boy, or a man, differs from that of being a girl or a woman in a range of ways which seem to me not all to rely on comparison to the opposite sex.

Or in contrast to being nonbinary etc

 

[Pickman's model]

Sure, but being a boy and being a girl are also oppositions, and children and women are also very often identified, we are frequently infantilised, deemed irrational etc.

I don't dispute a word you say. But I don't feel that focussing as kabbes does on definitions advances the thread more than an inch, if that. This important topic deserves better than to become a series of confrontations between real life and narrow sociological definitions of terms be they culture, men or women

 

[Red Cat]

A thread in the theory section of the boards where definitions don't matter?

I don't find what he says that abstract, as a woman. But then I am a woman who likes theory and finds it helpful to define categories and to think about how meaning is made. I also find kabbes one of the most respectful of women men on the boards, regardless of how he expresses himself using academic terms, and I believe he takes the issues raised by feminism very seriously.

 

[Pickman's model]

A thread in the theory section of the boards where definitions don't matter?

I don't find what he says that abstract, as a woman. But then I am a woman who likes theory and finds it helpful to define categories and to think about how meaning is made. I also find kabbes one of the most respectful of women men on the boards, regardless of how he expresses himself using academic terms, and I believe he takes the issues raised by feminism very seriously.

The use of academic terms excludes as much as it includes, and it is based upon a hierarchy of authority. For me, men being genuinely respectful of women on this thread is to let women's voices be heard rather than imposing ours and if that means men taking a step back and terms being used in a variety of ways so be it. I differ from kabbes in feeling that I don't have a monopoly on definitions