was on the 25th November.
This is a response to a forum on the Bristol INdymedia site:
http://bristol.indymedia.org/article/691199?condense_comments=false#comments
The fact remains that domestic violence is disproportionately committed by men against women, (as well as most male survivors of DV being attacked by male partners). and it isn't just domestic violence, it is about rape, rape as a weapon of war, forced marriages, FGM, sex trafficking, prostitution and the whole gamut of violence that is committed against women.I am completely convinced by the NEED to recognise the importance and devestating nature of DV and rape against men. i think we need to think seriously about this issue, and help create structures and a sense of safety to encourage male survivors of dv and rape to look for help, to come forward and to be recognised. i think greater attention does need to be given to male survivors and i think we need to find more effecive ways to help men in this area. but the need to help men doesn't negate the importance of this day. it is ok to talk about women survivors, and women survivors unqiuely, it is ok to focus some time and effort on raising awareness of the frighteningly global prevalence of violence against women. the DV stats, the 1 in 4 stat, the terrifying nature of FGM, the horrific rape conviction rate, the fact that we STILL blame women for their own rape (something which we don't really do to survivors of male rape), the imbalance in prosecuting women and men invovled in these crimes, the fact that rape is a weapon of war...today is a day to stand up and recognise these things and shout about them and make a noise and try to find solutions, try to find ways to help women out of the cycle of violence. whenever anything invovles women people get uppity and say "what about the men". well, i say to you, ok what about the men. if you feel this strongly about it, set up your own day, set up your own support groups, set up your own networks to help men out of violence. i am sure feminists will support you, and i truly believe men and women need to work together to end violence regardless of gender. but that doesn't mean we don't need one day to stand up and recognise violence against women. when every week the news reports the number of deaths from DV, when we live in a world without FGM and forced marriage, when the rape conviction rate is representative of the number of rapes, when we can have a feminist argument without someone saying "what about the men" then i wil believe we don't need this day. we're not there yet.
Friday, 27 November 2009
Wednesday, 11 November 2009
Armistice Day
Armistice Day
Was reminded by Jon Snow’s blog that this is the first Armistice Day with no one left alive to remember the horror of the trenches. As the First World War and the Second World War start to fade from living memory, as my generation’s grandparents start to pass away, it seems to be pertinent to reflect on the wars past and the current wars. The generation below mine will have no contact with those who fought in the two world wars, and yet whilst we grew up with the familial presence of those wars, we are now growing up in a world of their own wars, the war on terror and the civil wars and genocides and border rows and Cold War aftermaths that litter our globe.
We have Armistice Day to remind us of the sacrifice of those who died in the world wars and all the wars, and reflect on the mass slaughter in twentieth century Europe as a way to say “never again”. And yet, again it is. We have men and women fighting in Afghanistan in a war that is being run by political machinations and uncertain goals, and a war in Iraq that was ran based on lies and dodgy intelligence for the purposes of political and economic gain. We have genocides in Africa and the trials of genocide perpetrators in The Hague. We have renewed Republican violence in Ireland, the recent murders reported on the news as I returned home from a bar at 2 in the morning making me think we had stepped back in time. We have the horrific violence in Gaza and Palestine, the suppression of men and women in Iran, the arguing and debating and arguing over these issues, the threat of suicide bombers on our own shores and abroad and the troubling rise in Islamophobia that these crimes have caused.
Never again, we said, the war to end all wars that would lead to war twenty years later.
On Armistice Day I take a small moment to remember the Falklands War, my family war as this is the one in which my father fought in, when his ship was bombed as a decoy and he was rescued on the Endurance. The Falklands War was the first since WW2 where British soliders were killed, and more than the casualties of the war have been the suicides since. It is a chance to remember the effects of war that are far more reaching than the immediate impact of bombs and gunfire. The effect on mental health, on family relationships, on the adjustments back to the “real world” and how difficult this can be – the survivors need to be remembered as much as the dead.
I don’t agree in most cases with war. I don’t agree with those army ads and I don’t think we shold glorify war or suggest that it is anything more than dangerous, horrific and defined by death. I don’t agree with the wars we are fighting now although I don’t believe that withdrawing now is going to be any help at all.
But I think we need to recognise the importance of Armistice Day, we need to recognise the importance to remember the horror that war brings and the sadness, destruction and long term difficulties that war causes. We need to remember the dead and we need to remember the survivors. We need to think about our forces and we need to remember the countless civilians and unnamed victims of genocide and bombings and shootings and air raids and hunger that war causes.
Never again, we said, and yet again and again we see the same mistakes, the same issues that dogged men in the trenches (lack of equipment suited to the climate) and caused the deaths of millions in Europe (racial and religious hatred) and wreak the same havoc on returning soliders (not enough care and attention to PTSD). Armistice Day is a moment to reflect on the mistakes and tragedies of the past, and to try and learn and remember to not repeat the mistakes again.
As the two big wars fade from living memory and take their places firmly in the history books and not in the stories our grandparents tell us, and in the memories they try to forget, we need to make sure that future generations who do not have this living connection never forget the lessons we have yet to learn from these battles. We must continue to remember on Armistice Day, so that the tragedies and horrors of the wars do not become theoretical but remain a reminder to us to try and work towards a better world, to try to end genocidal conflicts and to keep the promise we made way back when, when we said Never Again.
This is my favourite war poem, so I’ll leave you with the wonderful words of Edward Thomas:
Roads
I love roads:
The goddesses that dwell
Far along invisible
Are my favourite gods.
Roads go on
While we forget, and are
Forgotten as a star
That shoots and is gone.
On this earth ’tis sure
We men have not made
Anything that doth fade
So soon, so long endure:
The hill road wet with rain
In the sun would not gleam
Like a winding stream
If we trod it not again.
They are lonely
While we sleep, lonelier
For lack of the traveller
Who is now a dream only.
From dawn’s twilight
And all the clouds like sheep
On the mountains of sleep
They wind into the night.
The next turn may reveal
Heaven: upon the crest
The close pine clump, at rest
And black, may Hell conceal.
Often footsore, never
Yet of the road I weary,
Though long and steep and dreary,
As it winds on forever.
Helen of the roads,
The mountain ways of WalesA
nd the Mabinogion tales
Is one of the true gods,
Abiding in the trees,
The threes and fours so wise,
The larger companies,
That by the roadside be,
And beneath the rafter
Else uninhabited
Excepting by the dead;
And it is her laughter
At morn and night I hear
When the thrush cock sings
Bright irrelevant things,
And when the chanticleer
Calls back to their own night
Troops that make loneliness
With their light footsteps’ press,
As Helen’s own are light.
Now all roads lead to France
And heavy is the tread
Of the living; but the dead
Returning lightly dance:
Whatever the road may bring
To me or take from me,
They keep me company
With their pattering,
Crowding the solitude
Of the loops over the downs,
Hushing the roar of towns
And their brief multitude.
Was reminded by Jon Snow’s blog that this is the first Armistice Day with no one left alive to remember the horror of the trenches. As the First World War and the Second World War start to fade from living memory, as my generation’s grandparents start to pass away, it seems to be pertinent to reflect on the wars past and the current wars. The generation below mine will have no contact with those who fought in the two world wars, and yet whilst we grew up with the familial presence of those wars, we are now growing up in a world of their own wars, the war on terror and the civil wars and genocides and border rows and Cold War aftermaths that litter our globe.
We have Armistice Day to remind us of the sacrifice of those who died in the world wars and all the wars, and reflect on the mass slaughter in twentieth century Europe as a way to say “never again”. And yet, again it is. We have men and women fighting in Afghanistan in a war that is being run by political machinations and uncertain goals, and a war in Iraq that was ran based on lies and dodgy intelligence for the purposes of political and economic gain. We have genocides in Africa and the trials of genocide perpetrators in The Hague. We have renewed Republican violence in Ireland, the recent murders reported on the news as I returned home from a bar at 2 in the morning making me think we had stepped back in time. We have the horrific violence in Gaza and Palestine, the suppression of men and women in Iran, the arguing and debating and arguing over these issues, the threat of suicide bombers on our own shores and abroad and the troubling rise in Islamophobia that these crimes have caused.
Never again, we said, the war to end all wars that would lead to war twenty years later.
On Armistice Day I take a small moment to remember the Falklands War, my family war as this is the one in which my father fought in, when his ship was bombed as a decoy and he was rescued on the Endurance. The Falklands War was the first since WW2 where British soliders were killed, and more than the casualties of the war have been the suicides since. It is a chance to remember the effects of war that are far more reaching than the immediate impact of bombs and gunfire. The effect on mental health, on family relationships, on the adjustments back to the “real world” and how difficult this can be – the survivors need to be remembered as much as the dead.
I don’t agree in most cases with war. I don’t agree with those army ads and I don’t think we shold glorify war or suggest that it is anything more than dangerous, horrific and defined by death. I don’t agree with the wars we are fighting now although I don’t believe that withdrawing now is going to be any help at all.
But I think we need to recognise the importance of Armistice Day, we need to recognise the importance to remember the horror that war brings and the sadness, destruction and long term difficulties that war causes. We need to remember the dead and we need to remember the survivors. We need to think about our forces and we need to remember the countless civilians and unnamed victims of genocide and bombings and shootings and air raids and hunger that war causes.
Never again, we said, and yet again and again we see the same mistakes, the same issues that dogged men in the trenches (lack of equipment suited to the climate) and caused the deaths of millions in Europe (racial and religious hatred) and wreak the same havoc on returning soliders (not enough care and attention to PTSD). Armistice Day is a moment to reflect on the mistakes and tragedies of the past, and to try and learn and remember to not repeat the mistakes again.
As the two big wars fade from living memory and take their places firmly in the history books and not in the stories our grandparents tell us, and in the memories they try to forget, we need to make sure that future generations who do not have this living connection never forget the lessons we have yet to learn from these battles. We must continue to remember on Armistice Day, so that the tragedies and horrors of the wars do not become theoretical but remain a reminder to us to try and work towards a better world, to try to end genocidal conflicts and to keep the promise we made way back when, when we said Never Again.
This is my favourite war poem, so I’ll leave you with the wonderful words of Edward Thomas:
Roads
I love roads:
The goddesses that dwell
Far along invisible
Are my favourite gods.
Roads go on
While we forget, and are
Forgotten as a star
That shoots and is gone.
On this earth ’tis sure
We men have not made
Anything that doth fade
So soon, so long endure:
The hill road wet with rain
In the sun would not gleam
Like a winding stream
If we trod it not again.
They are lonely
While we sleep, lonelier
For lack of the traveller
Who is now a dream only.
From dawn’s twilight
And all the clouds like sheep
On the mountains of sleep
They wind into the night.
The next turn may reveal
Heaven: upon the crest
The close pine clump, at rest
And black, may Hell conceal.
Often footsore, never
Yet of the road I weary,
Though long and steep and dreary,
As it winds on forever.
Helen of the roads,
The mountain ways of WalesA
nd the Mabinogion tales
Is one of the true gods,
Abiding in the trees,
The threes and fours so wise,
The larger companies,
That by the roadside be,
And beneath the rafter
Else uninhabited
Excepting by the dead;
And it is her laughter
At morn and night I hear
When the thrush cock sings
Bright irrelevant things,
And when the chanticleer
Calls back to their own night
Troops that make loneliness
With their light footsteps’ press,
As Helen’s own are light.
Now all roads lead to France
And heavy is the tread
Of the living; but the dead
Returning lightly dance:
Whatever the road may bring
To me or take from me,
They keep me company
With their pattering,
Crowding the solitude
Of the loops over the downs,
Hushing the roar of towns
And their brief multitude.
Tuesday, 3 November 2009
sick of the bloke-osphere
The Bloke-osphere
I hope Cath Elliott doesn’t mind me stealing one of her blog post titles but it is such a good way of expressing the issue I am about to try and discuss that I couldn’t resist the borrow. If you want to read the original blog post where I found this word then I urge you to visit her excellent blog – www.toomuchtosayformyself.com
And now to my matter…
Once again, I have sworn off Comment is Free. Once again I dared to read the comments on a feminist themed article, was made to feel sick and dizzy in rage, and left a furious comment stating that I would never return to its white and grey pages. And I wanted to use this opportunity to discuss why, and to see how other people feel about the CIF-esque behaviour on web forums when discussing an issue that is close to their heart, which for me is feminism, which for others could be climate change, healthcare, social reform, the war; all things which are close to my heart as well but which I don’t know as much about as feminism. Bearing this in mind, I am going to talk about feminist themed articles.
The last and final article I looked at on CIF was a well written, sympathetic editorial on the pay gap. The article clearly explained where the pay gap was happening in councils, why the pay gap was a problem and how the Leeds Council decision to reduce male wages to meet female wages has somehow made women workers look like the baddies, rather than the council managers who are paying unequal wages.
The comments were the usual barrage of denial of the pay gap’s existence, and my old favourite, that the pay gap is not a gender gap but a “mother gap”. Of course, it is us silly women’s fault for going off and having babies, if we didn’t have babies then we would get equal pay wouldn’t we! (erm, no seeing as the pay gap exists regardless). Oh but wait, if women don’t have babies we women get into trouble for being heartless Lady Macbeth style monsters intent on ruining the human race! What to do! Someone commented that bin collectors deserve more money seeing as it is harder to be a bin collector than be a carer. Having done neither job I can’t comment (although I have my view) but this is the kind of misinformed comment that abounded. (misinformed in that how the fuck does the commenter know which is harder?!)
But my favourite comment came from someone who complained that the Fawcett Society were always talking about how bad everything is, but never actually getting on and doing something about it.
WTF! This statement, coming from someone on a web forum, moaning about how bad everything is, but thinking it is more constructive to sit around on a web forum moaning than doing anything about it. (quickly realising how I was guilty of doing the same thing I shouted that I would no longer sit on CIF as I had better things to do, such as organise the representations of women in the media project, international woman’s day and Reclaim the Night).
I realised that part of the problem with the aggressive people on web forums – and by aggressive I mean those who are shouty and rude, and those who are also snide and patronising, is that they tend to be people who think they know best about a subject, who think they are more expert than the expert, who think they can criticise research and writing on which they know very little, and when someone questions their so called superior knowledge, they have a web tantrum and start criticising you of having an agenda, or being middle class. (surreal).
One area in which this is paramount has been illustrated today by Jess McCabe’s article. (Which I saw on the F Word – I did go on CIF to read the article and read the comments! I am keeping my vow…for now) The debate from CIF has strayed a bit onto the F Word, with CIF commenters calling her use of statistics into question. McCabe rightly points out that she didn’t do the research (the UN etc did the research) but the stats presented stand up in terms of the general patterns presented.
Whenever a feminist article appears on CIF or similar forums and uses statistics, commenters call the stats into question, saying they have been specially selected to serve a feminist agenda. Or that the stats are inaccurate (how the fuck can your average CIF commenter know that the UN stats are inaccurate!!) and are being used to serve a feminist agenda.
I have not noticed this kind of reaction to statistics on any other type of CIF discussion.
Of course I believe strongly we should question statistics. Of course they can be used to serve an agenda – we just need to look at the Iraqi death stats to know that. But when an article supplies a range of statistics that all pretty much point to the same outcome, as McCabe does in hers, as countless articles on rape, DV, pay gaps etc have done, then we can at least take those pieces of research as a base to build our understanding.
It is the arrogance that gets me, and puts me off from visiting the site ever again. The arrogance to assume that you know better than the author of the article which stats are genuine and which ones aren’t. If you have the evidence (which, considering as CIF readers are always demanding more evidence, you would think those complainants would produce themselves) to show that the author is being a liar, then post it. But what I have seen time and time again is this sort of assumption that feminist articles which quote stats are untrustworthy off the bat, with no backing up alternative research or stats.
And, what I don’t get is why, if stats are so untrustworthy, why if the stats produced by the author are fitting an agenda, how should we be expected to trust the commenters reply stats? How can we tell if they are any more trustworthy? It goes round and round and round.
My final point on stats is this. When a feminist article doesn’t use stats, and instead uses anecdotes and stories, the author is accused of not backing up the stories with stats! But if stats are added in, then the stats are untrustworthy! It’s a minefield! You can’t win.
This isn’t just a bloke thing btw (referring back to my bloke-osphere title) but something commenters of all sex and gender do. For example, a recent article on menstruation activists sparked off a crazy set of anger and disgust and lack of understanding about the subject of women’s periods. It was frightening, the sheer horror and disgust expressed by people on this subject. It really showed a degree of terrifying women hating. But that’s by the by. The conversation moved towards mooncups, and I had men and women who had NEVER used a mooncup telling me it was crap/unhygienic/for people living in pixieland/unpractical and a host of other adjectives. Yes, the mooncup isn’t for everyone, but it is a clear example of uniformed commenters thinking they know best and drowning out the voices of those who have an informed opinion or experience. When I explained why their comments were unjust, I was told I was living in pixieland. Nice.
I think there should always be room for debate and argument, for people to disagree and point out differences and flaws in the argument. But the attitude of the anti feminist commenters on CIF doesn’t match this. The volume of those who shout down and disagree and slag off feminist perspectives stifles debate and stifles conversation, as people like me slink off to lick our metaphorical wounds and decide it just isn’t worth a hassle to fight back against people who’s view point will never, ever be changed because they just won’t listen!
From stats and misinformation, I am going to move on to the more gender specific, bloke-osphere nature of this debate, and relates to the de-railers of conversation on an article about a feminist issue by crying out loud and clear “what about the men!”
The clearest example of this is about rape. The crime of rape is generally discussed and framed around a feminist debate, with the recognition that men rape other men too, that men can be a victim of rape and that by working to improve rape sentencing for women and making it easier for women to feel able to report rape, we will simultaneously be breaking down barriers and helping men feel able to report rape too. I am massive believer in the idea that the fight against rape can’t be won separately.
Yet whenever an article on CIF or any feminist forum, including Cath’s blog and the F Word, we have (chiefly male) commenters wanting to discuss false conviction rate.
Now. I am not denying that false accusations of rape do happen. But when the conviction rate for rape hangs between 5-6%, a conviction rate lower than most other violent crimes, and the false accusation rape is, on average, the same as every other crime including insurance fraud etc, I don’t think that false accusations are the issue that should be discussed. I think the issue that needs to be discussed is why the hell, in this day and age, did Amnesty’s recent survey on attitudes suggested that 33% of people think a woman asks for it if drunk/wearing a short skirt. Why are the Daily Mail writing headlines saying women are drunk, not drugged. Why is the conviction rate so low.
A false accusation of rape is devastating I am sure, and can ruin a reputation. But if you read CIF et al you would think that these accusations abound, that they are more prevalent than rape, that the false accusation rate for rape was 95% rather than actually being the same as the false accusation for every other crime.
The same happens in discussions on DV, objectification and street harrassment and even on the pay gap (“well I work in the public sector so earn less than these high flying private sector women who are complaining” kinda thing). A discussion on DV will veer to “what about male victims” – a statement tha does need to be considered but generally ignores the fact that the majority of male victims of DV are the victims of male partners and comparitively the male victims of women partners is very small. Yes we should be fighting to end ALL DV, whether perpetuated against men or women, whether perpetuated by men or women. But when we all know that the majority by a LONG CHALK of DV survivors are women attacked by men, when TWO WOMEN A WEEK are killed by their (ex and current) partners, I think it is ok to approach the DV debate from a female perspective. As with male and female victims of rape, if we can encourage people to believe in the seriousness of DV against women then this simultaneously encourages us to look at the whole DV picture and not place one gender above another. This doesn’t change the facts though, that the majority of victims are women, that the majority of offenders are men.
Please don’t demand statistics. You know that that is true!
Street harrassment, objectification – the same thing again. You talk about street harrassment, or how you don’t like the way women appear in magazines, and you get told that “men get harrassed bty drunk women in clubs” or “men are being objectified too now”. Well, I get harrassed by drunk men in clubs, and in pubs, and on the street, and by sober men on the street, and by sober men in the park, and by sober men in the workplace, and by sober men everywhere I choose to go. There is a growing problem with the objectification of men in the media but it is miniscule compared to the frankly insane objectification of women. And again, if we fight the objectification of women, we can fight the objectification of men! The two go hand in hand! By saying enough to the objectification of women we can nip in the bud the growing problem of male objectification.
Enough of examples. I’m going to try and explain why I think (chiefly male) commenters derail the debate in this way.
Because it is a way of saying that women’s problems aren’t important, aren’t serious, shouldn’t be taken seriously in a serious forum of serious debate, and if we are going to talk about it then surely it would be better to look at the more serious ways in which these non-serious issues could seriously effect men (I am being repetitive on purpose).
It says that an issue is only important if it affects men more than/as much as women. It says that women should stop fighting for their rights and start fighting for men’s rights instead.
By undermining the research and evidence without proof, by saying that talking about women’s issues shouldn’t happen without talking about men as well, the “bloke-osphere” is saying that issues which affect women aren’t worthy of attention, and are only worthy of attention if framed in a way that takes men’s issues into account too.
This is why when there was ONE article about the effect of D-Day on women and dozens about the bravery of the men in D-Day (bravery rightly celebrated), commenters rushed to the site to criticise that the article didn’t mention the male fighters. No one commented on the articles about the male fighter bemoaning the lack of mention about women. It’s why people try to conflate Chippendales with the rise of strip clubs.
Forums like these are becoming a hostile environment for women like me who want to present the female side of the question. Rather than allowing debate, it stifles it, saying as it does that the women question is unimportant, unless constantly backed up by explaining how men suffer too.
The way the patriarchy hurts men is important. We need to tackle male rape and domestic violence against men. But there is nothing wrong about framing these debates through a feminist perspective and by looking at how they affect women, when women are in the majority of those affected. By constantly derailing the debate, the bloke-osphere makes a mockery of debate and of discussion, turning it into a one sided anti feminist squabble, conveniently ignoring the survivors and those affected, who need help, support, law changes and attitude changes. Instead, when these arguments kick off on CIF et al, the reality of the issues are forgotten about in favour of semantics and hypotheses. And I am sick of it.
PS - Tabloid Watch, Daily Quail, Enemies of Reason and other wonderful male written blogs are out there and provide a feminist friendly space so it isn't all bad readers. i think the main offenders know who they are...
I hope Cath Elliott doesn’t mind me stealing one of her blog post titles but it is such a good way of expressing the issue I am about to try and discuss that I couldn’t resist the borrow. If you want to read the original blog post where I found this word then I urge you to visit her excellent blog – www.toomuchtosayformyself.com
And now to my matter…
Once again, I have sworn off Comment is Free. Once again I dared to read the comments on a feminist themed article, was made to feel sick and dizzy in rage, and left a furious comment stating that I would never return to its white and grey pages. And I wanted to use this opportunity to discuss why, and to see how other people feel about the CIF-esque behaviour on web forums when discussing an issue that is close to their heart, which for me is feminism, which for others could be climate change, healthcare, social reform, the war; all things which are close to my heart as well but which I don’t know as much about as feminism. Bearing this in mind, I am going to talk about feminist themed articles.
The last and final article I looked at on CIF was a well written, sympathetic editorial on the pay gap. The article clearly explained where the pay gap was happening in councils, why the pay gap was a problem and how the Leeds Council decision to reduce male wages to meet female wages has somehow made women workers look like the baddies, rather than the council managers who are paying unequal wages.
The comments were the usual barrage of denial of the pay gap’s existence, and my old favourite, that the pay gap is not a gender gap but a “mother gap”. Of course, it is us silly women’s fault for going off and having babies, if we didn’t have babies then we would get equal pay wouldn’t we! (erm, no seeing as the pay gap exists regardless). Oh but wait, if women don’t have babies we women get into trouble for being heartless Lady Macbeth style monsters intent on ruining the human race! What to do! Someone commented that bin collectors deserve more money seeing as it is harder to be a bin collector than be a carer. Having done neither job I can’t comment (although I have my view) but this is the kind of misinformed comment that abounded. (misinformed in that how the fuck does the commenter know which is harder?!)
But my favourite comment came from someone who complained that the Fawcett Society were always talking about how bad everything is, but never actually getting on and doing something about it.
WTF! This statement, coming from someone on a web forum, moaning about how bad everything is, but thinking it is more constructive to sit around on a web forum moaning than doing anything about it. (quickly realising how I was guilty of doing the same thing I shouted that I would no longer sit on CIF as I had better things to do, such as organise the representations of women in the media project, international woman’s day and Reclaim the Night).
I realised that part of the problem with the aggressive people on web forums – and by aggressive I mean those who are shouty and rude, and those who are also snide and patronising, is that they tend to be people who think they know best about a subject, who think they are more expert than the expert, who think they can criticise research and writing on which they know very little, and when someone questions their so called superior knowledge, they have a web tantrum and start criticising you of having an agenda, or being middle class. (surreal).
One area in which this is paramount has been illustrated today by Jess McCabe’s article. (Which I saw on the F Word – I did go on CIF to read the article and read the comments! I am keeping my vow…for now) The debate from CIF has strayed a bit onto the F Word, with CIF commenters calling her use of statistics into question. McCabe rightly points out that she didn’t do the research (the UN etc did the research) but the stats presented stand up in terms of the general patterns presented.
Whenever a feminist article appears on CIF or similar forums and uses statistics, commenters call the stats into question, saying they have been specially selected to serve a feminist agenda. Or that the stats are inaccurate (how the fuck can your average CIF commenter know that the UN stats are inaccurate!!) and are being used to serve a feminist agenda.
I have not noticed this kind of reaction to statistics on any other type of CIF discussion.
Of course I believe strongly we should question statistics. Of course they can be used to serve an agenda – we just need to look at the Iraqi death stats to know that. But when an article supplies a range of statistics that all pretty much point to the same outcome, as McCabe does in hers, as countless articles on rape, DV, pay gaps etc have done, then we can at least take those pieces of research as a base to build our understanding.
It is the arrogance that gets me, and puts me off from visiting the site ever again. The arrogance to assume that you know better than the author of the article which stats are genuine and which ones aren’t. If you have the evidence (which, considering as CIF readers are always demanding more evidence, you would think those complainants would produce themselves) to show that the author is being a liar, then post it. But what I have seen time and time again is this sort of assumption that feminist articles which quote stats are untrustworthy off the bat, with no backing up alternative research or stats.
And, what I don’t get is why, if stats are so untrustworthy, why if the stats produced by the author are fitting an agenda, how should we be expected to trust the commenters reply stats? How can we tell if they are any more trustworthy? It goes round and round and round.
My final point on stats is this. When a feminist article doesn’t use stats, and instead uses anecdotes and stories, the author is accused of not backing up the stories with stats! But if stats are added in, then the stats are untrustworthy! It’s a minefield! You can’t win.
This isn’t just a bloke thing btw (referring back to my bloke-osphere title) but something commenters of all sex and gender do. For example, a recent article on menstruation activists sparked off a crazy set of anger and disgust and lack of understanding about the subject of women’s periods. It was frightening, the sheer horror and disgust expressed by people on this subject. It really showed a degree of terrifying women hating. But that’s by the by. The conversation moved towards mooncups, and I had men and women who had NEVER used a mooncup telling me it was crap/unhygienic/for people living in pixieland/unpractical and a host of other adjectives. Yes, the mooncup isn’t for everyone, but it is a clear example of uniformed commenters thinking they know best and drowning out the voices of those who have an informed opinion or experience. When I explained why their comments were unjust, I was told I was living in pixieland. Nice.
I think there should always be room for debate and argument, for people to disagree and point out differences and flaws in the argument. But the attitude of the anti feminist commenters on CIF doesn’t match this. The volume of those who shout down and disagree and slag off feminist perspectives stifles debate and stifles conversation, as people like me slink off to lick our metaphorical wounds and decide it just isn’t worth a hassle to fight back against people who’s view point will never, ever be changed because they just won’t listen!
From stats and misinformation, I am going to move on to the more gender specific, bloke-osphere nature of this debate, and relates to the de-railers of conversation on an article about a feminist issue by crying out loud and clear “what about the men!”
The clearest example of this is about rape. The crime of rape is generally discussed and framed around a feminist debate, with the recognition that men rape other men too, that men can be a victim of rape and that by working to improve rape sentencing for women and making it easier for women to feel able to report rape, we will simultaneously be breaking down barriers and helping men feel able to report rape too. I am massive believer in the idea that the fight against rape can’t be won separately.
Yet whenever an article on CIF or any feminist forum, including Cath’s blog and the F Word, we have (chiefly male) commenters wanting to discuss false conviction rate.
Now. I am not denying that false accusations of rape do happen. But when the conviction rate for rape hangs between 5-6%, a conviction rate lower than most other violent crimes, and the false accusation rape is, on average, the same as every other crime including insurance fraud etc, I don’t think that false accusations are the issue that should be discussed. I think the issue that needs to be discussed is why the hell, in this day and age, did Amnesty’s recent survey on attitudes suggested that 33% of people think a woman asks for it if drunk/wearing a short skirt. Why are the Daily Mail writing headlines saying women are drunk, not drugged. Why is the conviction rate so low.
A false accusation of rape is devastating I am sure, and can ruin a reputation. But if you read CIF et al you would think that these accusations abound, that they are more prevalent than rape, that the false accusation rate for rape was 95% rather than actually being the same as the false accusation for every other crime.
The same happens in discussions on DV, objectification and street harrassment and even on the pay gap (“well I work in the public sector so earn less than these high flying private sector women who are complaining” kinda thing). A discussion on DV will veer to “what about male victims” – a statement tha does need to be considered but generally ignores the fact that the majority of male victims of DV are the victims of male partners and comparitively the male victims of women partners is very small. Yes we should be fighting to end ALL DV, whether perpetuated against men or women, whether perpetuated by men or women. But when we all know that the majority by a LONG CHALK of DV survivors are women attacked by men, when TWO WOMEN A WEEK are killed by their (ex and current) partners, I think it is ok to approach the DV debate from a female perspective. As with male and female victims of rape, if we can encourage people to believe in the seriousness of DV against women then this simultaneously encourages us to look at the whole DV picture and not place one gender above another. This doesn’t change the facts though, that the majority of victims are women, that the majority of offenders are men.
Please don’t demand statistics. You know that that is true!
Street harrassment, objectification – the same thing again. You talk about street harrassment, or how you don’t like the way women appear in magazines, and you get told that “men get harrassed bty drunk women in clubs” or “men are being objectified too now”. Well, I get harrassed by drunk men in clubs, and in pubs, and on the street, and by sober men on the street, and by sober men in the park, and by sober men in the workplace, and by sober men everywhere I choose to go. There is a growing problem with the objectification of men in the media but it is miniscule compared to the frankly insane objectification of women. And again, if we fight the objectification of women, we can fight the objectification of men! The two go hand in hand! By saying enough to the objectification of women we can nip in the bud the growing problem of male objectification.
Enough of examples. I’m going to try and explain why I think (chiefly male) commenters derail the debate in this way.
Because it is a way of saying that women’s problems aren’t important, aren’t serious, shouldn’t be taken seriously in a serious forum of serious debate, and if we are going to talk about it then surely it would be better to look at the more serious ways in which these non-serious issues could seriously effect men (I am being repetitive on purpose).
It says that an issue is only important if it affects men more than/as much as women. It says that women should stop fighting for their rights and start fighting for men’s rights instead.
By undermining the research and evidence without proof, by saying that talking about women’s issues shouldn’t happen without talking about men as well, the “bloke-osphere” is saying that issues which affect women aren’t worthy of attention, and are only worthy of attention if framed in a way that takes men’s issues into account too.
This is why when there was ONE article about the effect of D-Day on women and dozens about the bravery of the men in D-Day (bravery rightly celebrated), commenters rushed to the site to criticise that the article didn’t mention the male fighters. No one commented on the articles about the male fighter bemoaning the lack of mention about women. It’s why people try to conflate Chippendales with the rise of strip clubs.
Forums like these are becoming a hostile environment for women like me who want to present the female side of the question. Rather than allowing debate, it stifles it, saying as it does that the women question is unimportant, unless constantly backed up by explaining how men suffer too.
The way the patriarchy hurts men is important. We need to tackle male rape and domestic violence against men. But there is nothing wrong about framing these debates through a feminist perspective and by looking at how they affect women, when women are in the majority of those affected. By constantly derailing the debate, the bloke-osphere makes a mockery of debate and of discussion, turning it into a one sided anti feminist squabble, conveniently ignoring the survivors and those affected, who need help, support, law changes and attitude changes. Instead, when these arguments kick off on CIF et al, the reality of the issues are forgotten about in favour of semantics and hypotheses. And I am sick of it.
PS - Tabloid Watch, Daily Quail, Enemies of Reason and other wonderful male written blogs are out there and provide a feminist friendly space so it isn't all bad readers. i think the main offenders know who they are...
House of Cards
House of Cards
When I view myself from above,
As I can do sometimes, in my head – a bird’s eye view of where I am at the moment,
I see a house of cards, but with cards made of rice paper.
It is disconcerting.
I feel like everything is very precariously being held in a balance, at the moment. One false move and BAM, everything tumbling down. I know that things are ok, and I am lucky, and I have my home and my friends and my boyfriend to keep me safe. And I have all the strength I have built up.
But one false move…
It is very odd, I can tell you, to feel this teenage about life again. I feel like the day that I started crying when I couldn’t work out which of the two purple toothbrushes in the toothbrush jar belonged to me. I’m on a verge…
When you lose something that makes you feel stable, when things you rely on fall away, be that a job, or a friendship, or a life or family…the effect is far more frightening than I ever imagined.
When I am not seeing a house of cards I see a matchstick structure held together by spiderweb silk, wavering.
They are strong structures, they are built o stand. But they can be damaged by a false move.
I have never liked change. Change feels like a stiff breeze against the house of cards.
I am blessed in that I have wonderful people around me who can cement that spiderweb silk and who can superglue down the cards.
But the background stability, the knowledge that things work out and remain solid, that some things really are forever and for good, the loss of that knowledge, it’s a stiff breeze.
I am having nightmares most nights and waking up. When I don’t have a nightmare, something on my street wakes me up. It isn’t that helpful.
I have huge reserves of strength. I know this, I have survived before. It is just hard to remember sometimes.
And I pay tribute to the people around me who keep things ok.
When I view myself from above,
As I can do sometimes, in my head – a bird’s eye view of where I am at the moment,
I see a house of cards, but with cards made of rice paper.
It is disconcerting.
I feel like everything is very precariously being held in a balance, at the moment. One false move and BAM, everything tumbling down. I know that things are ok, and I am lucky, and I have my home and my friends and my boyfriend to keep me safe. And I have all the strength I have built up.
But one false move…
It is very odd, I can tell you, to feel this teenage about life again. I feel like the day that I started crying when I couldn’t work out which of the two purple toothbrushes in the toothbrush jar belonged to me. I’m on a verge…
When you lose something that makes you feel stable, when things you rely on fall away, be that a job, or a friendship, or a life or family…the effect is far more frightening than I ever imagined.
When I am not seeing a house of cards I see a matchstick structure held together by spiderweb silk, wavering.
They are strong structures, they are built o stand. But they can be damaged by a false move.
I have never liked change. Change feels like a stiff breeze against the house of cards.
I am blessed in that I have wonderful people around me who can cement that spiderweb silk and who can superglue down the cards.
But the background stability, the knowledge that things work out and remain solid, that some things really are forever and for good, the loss of that knowledge, it’s a stiff breeze.
I am having nightmares most nights and waking up. When I don’t have a nightmare, something on my street wakes me up. It isn’t that helpful.
I have huge reserves of strength. I know this, I have survived before. It is just hard to remember sometimes.
And I pay tribute to the people around me who keep things ok.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)