million women rise march and rally - today (5th march), central london

[tufty79]

i didn't make the march/rally after all (crowd nerves got the better of me, innit), but my friend saw it go past in oxford street and said it was.. well.. not huge, but very visible
and i genuinely didn't start this as a bunfight thread - i think i got confused with the 'announcements' forum (what's happened to that, eh?), where it was meant to be.. er.. just announcements.
@self

 

[ViolentPanda]

Why are the male posters assuming that somewhere there is a message saying "all men are abusers"???

Because rather than doing the sensible thing of reading the text, they're looking for a subtext.
You know, the subtext that can mean "march against male violence toward women" actually gives the message "all men are evil oppressors, the bastards!".

I don't know why people might read an announcement as an accusation, rather than as an announcement by an "interest group", but then I have no personal investment in issues of domestic violence, whereas their mileage may vary.

 

[Clair De Lune]

It's like saying gay people shouldn't march because not everyone is gay, people shouldn't march against racism because not everyone is black or a racist. Violence against women is a problem, but saying that doesn't mean it is the only problem or indeed that all men are part of the problem.

 

[tufty79]

It's like saying gay people shouldn't march because not everyone is gay, people shouldn't march against racism because not everyone is black or a racist. Violence against women is a problem, but saying that doesn't mean it is the only problem or indeed that all men are part of the problem.

thank you for lifting the words out of my brain

 

[ViolentPanda]

As far as I see it, angel, it's using male privilege to effectively kill any such discussion on any specific problems there may be in society regarding male violence on women.

'All men are abusers'
'Those feminists are men haters'

,etc.

Which is ridiculous, because in those fora that matter (the law and social welfare, for example), the reality of both sides of the domestic violence coin are acknowledged.

It strikes me, though, that while in the literature that deals with domestic violence against males by females, the relative preponderance of male on female violence is acknowledged, and research attempts to establish not equivalence, but the dynamics of the types so that commonalities (and non-commonalities) can be found, in "the real world", as in media reportage there's still a drive to cast the same amount of light on the topic as has been cast on male on female violence, even though (in terms of numbers) there's a substantial difference. It appears that some people take a lack of equivalence as equating to a disregarding or denigration of the reality of female on male violence, but it isn't, it's just a manifestation of the differences the relative age of the one movement as compared to the other have made in terms of public exposure.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Absolutely.

Like I said previously, I don't feel that marches like this are giving any kind of 'all men are bastards' message. I don't have any problem with it.

But there is a significant minority of men that are abused by their partners too, many of which would probably like to join in with a demonstration like this if it wasn't labelled in a way that excludes their experiences. I expect the same applies to those who experience violence in a same sex relationship too.

So why not turn it into a 'violence in the home' issue next year, instead of just one section (although the largest one) of that? Unite with straight men and LBJ people who have been affected by the issue? I think that would be a positive thing.

The difficulty with that boils down to human interaction: In some cases people are not going to be willing and/or able to march alongside someone who represents the gender of their oppressor. While that may seem petty and irrational, it's also eminently human.

 

[ViolentPanda]

A woman was once mean to me.

Research has shown that chino wearers are 3 times more likely to have women be mean to them than jeans wearers.

 

[Corax]

In some cases people are not going to be willing and/or able to march alongside someone who represents the gender of their oppressor.

If that's the case then we may as well give up completely then, cos we're all fucked.

 

[ViolentPanda]

If that's the case then we may as well give up completely then, cos we're all fucked.

I said "some", not all. You're always going to have extremes on any spectrum of opinion. The challenge is to develop approaches that minimise the effect those extremes exercise, while still listening to and trying to appreciate their POV.

So, we're not all fucked.

 

[frogwoman]

to be honest i thought that the whole point of these women oly marches was to have a space in which women could march and not have this be taken over /dominated by men who don't necessarily understand what it is like to experiecne sexism etc, however well-intentioned, as often happens (and also happens on the left as well as other aspects of society).

i do actually think that they frequently have a point tbh.

 

[frogwoman]

because a lot of people have no fucking idea.

 

[frogwoman]

That's not to say that the real crazy "man-haters" don't exist. I used to live with one to be honest and she wasn't exactly a great advert for feminism

 

[stethoscope]

to be honest i thought that the whole point of these women oly marches was to have a space in which women could march and not have this be taken over /dominated by men who don't necessarily understand what it is like to experiecne sexism etc, however well-intentioned, as often happens (and also happens on the left as well as other aspects of society).

Yep.

 

[Corax]

to be honest i thought that the whole point of these women oly marches was to have a space in which women could march and not have this be taken over /dominated by men who don't necessarily understand what it is like to experiecne sexism etc, however well-intentioned, as often happens (and also happens on the left as well as other aspects of society).

i do actually think that they frequently have a point tbh.

(The below isn't a direct answer to your post froggie - I'm quoting you more because it was what prompted my comment)

I think that some women who are involved with the issue make the unconscious mistake of thinking that men don't experience being dominated in that way, by other men, and by women. They forget that there are lots of men who are shy, insecure, delicate even. These men can be just as intimidated and suppressed by overbearing dominating men as any woman. There are also a lot of women who are aggressive and bullying.

That doesn't invalidate your point at all, because you're right that some women do feel as you say, and so I suppose it's unfortunate but true that there is a place for women only marches etc. As I've said before though, I just think it's a shame. It would be great if everyone could unite against the problem, regardless of gender.

 

[frogwoman]

oh sure , but it isn't just about personality. it's also (for some people anyway) about not wanting to be told how they "should" feel about these issues etc if you see what i mean. and not wanting to have their feelings invalidated or think they havve to censor thmeselves.

im not saying your doing that btw, the whole thing is very complicated.

 

[trashpony]

Some of my friends who were there said there were men there (so they're really not banned at all) and they were cheered to see them. So go next year Corax

 

[Corax]

the whole thing is very complicated.

This.

 

[frogwoman]

Some of my friends who were there said there were men there (so they're really not banned at all) and they were cheered to see them. So go next year Corax

yep

 

[quimcunx]

Perhaps the problem is how the movement grew. If we'd originally had a movement against domestic abuse and violence that could be an umbrella for women suffering from domestic abuse from men, domestic abuse within LGBT relationships, familial carer abuse or men abused by women which deal with the particulars of these abuses (for instance women are usually physically less strong than men) which would mean that marches like this would not be seen as an attack on all men but merely acknowledge that some women who have been abused would feel more comfortable in a woman only march. However it has not evolved this way. As far as I know ( and, frankly, I've not studied the history) It started with women being abused by men and grew from there with there then being the acknowledgement that men are also abused by women etc.

 

[Thora]

Bizarre how many men see any mention of male violence against women as a personal insult I mean, if you're not beating or raping any women or children then this isn't about you, so why feel attacked?

 

[frogwoman]

Bizarre how many men see any mention of male violence against women as a personal insult I mean, if you're not beating or raping any women or children then this isn't about you, so why feel attacked?

Innit.

 

[Corax]

Some of my friends who were there said there were men there (so they're really not banned at all) and they were cheered to see them. So go next year Corax

Hmm. That makes it even less clear IMO. If men are welcome, then a more inclusive title would be a positive thing. If it's a women only event for the reasons Froggie's commented on, then men shouldn't be attending surely?

 

[Thora]

The other thing I don't understand, is men who complain at any instance of women organising around women's issues/interests that they're not equally representing men's interests. Surely if men feel a particular issue is affecting them, they are free to represent themselves?

 

[stethoscope]

Much of the movement grew out of 2nd wave feminism - at the time, shit was happening when it came to violence against women, rape within marriage, etc. One such notable moment in the UK was the Yorkshire Ripper case. The police's response at the time was to effectively place a curfew on women by telling them to not go out in the evenings or go without their husbands. This started a reaction because if anything (and I agree considering the context of societal attitudes towards women at that time), why not place a curfew on men instead whilst they tried to capture the Yorkshire Ripper? Hmmm, sexism.

Women also found that even amongst some Left political circles, their voices were invariably drowned out by men. Women's spaces came about to empower women and desire to make them look politically at their position and roles in society and how that could be challenged. Primarily to make women's lives better, but actually that by breaking down gender that it could benefit men too.

There's DV campaigns and safe spaces for various parts of the LGBT community too, and the last 10 years has seen much better organisation and information for men affected by DV also. There's also a rising MRA movement but frankly they're usually a bunch of right-wing fruitloops who seem to want to preserve traditional gender power structures rather than breaking them.

I appreciate what some say about unified campaigning and organisation about violence (and there is some umbrella organisation), but it's important that different types of violence and abuse are understood and their causes analysed - whether it be institutional and societal sexism, homophobia, the power structures that exist been genders, classes, races, straight/cis and LGBT, etc. Safe spaces and marches support that environment - and I mean, FFS, most of these happen for less than a day on one day each year, and yet still some people still think it's some sort of direct attack on them.

 

[Paulie Tandoori]

No, we're all too busy cooking your dinners to go on marches

 

[Corax]

The other thing I don't understand, is men who complain at any instance of women organising around women's issues/interests that they're not equally representing men's interests. Surely if men feel a particular issue is affecting them, they are free to represent themselves?

I think the problem is that male victims of most gender based problems are usually a minority. There are doubtless many more women suffering domestic abuse than men. The men often feel like they won't be taken seriously or will be laughed at (as an abused male is failing to meet society's image of a 'man') and so don't have the confidence to self mobilise. In the cases where they do, they often are laughed at. Similar women's groups have already built respect and a power base of sorts, so it's only natural that men would feel more confident joining with them rather than going it alone.

I don't think I've explained that very well. My brain's not converting thoughts into words very well this evening.

I'm conscious that the thread has become yet another one about how men are also abused etc, which it probably shouldn't be...

 

[stethoscope]

Men certainly should find the power and strength to self-mobilise and organise (and I think you've highlighted some issues there which I think are a problem within societies gender expectations of men, and relationships between males), and when it comes to making their collective voices being heard re. being victim to DV/abuse by a female partner, then that's what they should be doing.

My experience though is that instead of doing so and also understanding how class, gender and other such issues permeate into this and working towards better support networks for themselves, they so often tend to appear to attack women's liberation and women organising instead. Of which has already been rather exhibited on this thread.

 

[quimcunx]

Much of the movement grew out of 2nd wave feminism - at the time, shit was happening when it came to violence against women, rape within marriage, etc. One such notable moment in the UK was the Yorkshire Ripper case. The police's response at the time was to effectively place a curfew on women by telling them to not go out in the evenings or go without their husbands. This started a reaction because if anything (and I agree considering the context of societal attitudes towards women at that time), why not place a curfew on men instead whilst they tried to capture the Yorkshire Ripper? Hmmm, sexism.

I didn't know that but as it goes I've often said that if a curfew is to be imposed on anyone it should be men warned to stay in or be at risk of being mistaken for a rapist.

There's DV campaigns and safe spaces for various parts of the LGBT community too, and the last 10 years has seen much better organisation and information for men affected by DV also. There's also a rising MRA movement but frankly they're usually a bunch of right-wing fruitloops who seem to want to preserve traditional gender power structures rather than breaking them.

Don't know what MRA is. I know more men in abusive relationships than women. Or rather of the people I know who are in abusive relationships they are men not women. That is just my experience of course.

There are doubtless many more women suffering domestic abuse than men.

Are there? I wouldn't be so sure.

The men often feel like they won't be taken seriously or will be laughed at (as an abused male is failing to meet society's image of a 'man') and so don't have the confidence to self mobilise. In the cases where they do, they often are laughed at. Similar women's groups have already built respect and a power base of sorts, so it's only natural that men would feel more confident joining with them rather than going it alone.

I don't think I've explained that very well. My brain's not converting thoughts into words very well this evening.

I'm conscious that the thread has become yet another one about how men are also abused etc, which it probably shouldn't be...

I know what you mean. I was about to say something similar.

 

[stethoscope]

Quimcunx: MRA - Men's Rights Activist.

 

[quimcunx]

cheers.