piranha: red origami crane (Default)
renaissance poisson ([personal profile] piranha) wrote2006-06-12 11:39 am

feminist critique

one in a long if casual series illuminating "why i am not a feminist, but an egalitarian humanist".

this was originally written as a comment in somebody else's LJ, but i decided not to post it because the thread was too old, and because i went off on a tangent. the post that started it regarded a feminist protest of violence against women and children as "duh, like who's in favour of violence these days other than psychos". then there was a reply saying that feminists are doing it because people need to have it pointed out, that everyone accepts violence by strangers as the real thing, but domestic abuse is somehow not viewed as just as bad. and that didn't ring true for me -- but i wonder whether i am now too far removed from the mainstream to have a good feel for what they think. i'm judging mostly by what i read on mainstream news and social commentary on blogs.

i've been straining my brain and i cannot think of any people nowadays openly claiming domestic abuse against women isn't a serious problem, anywhere i read. nobody (in any significant numbers that i can see) wants women be injured by their husbands [*]. i think some feminists might be misreading a reaction against broadening the term "violence" as a denial that abuse happens. i myself do make a distinction between "violence" and "force" (and lots of acquaintance rape uses force, IMO, not violence), but i think either is inappropriate in a supposedly loving relationship; i don't make the distinction in order to trivialize acquaintance rape -- i think it is by far a more serious problem than stranger rape. i think that such protests are done simply because domestic abuse keeps happening. (i'll keep my thoughts about their efficacy for myself just now so this doesn't become about that.) i don't know a single person who thinks domestic abuse is ok, not even a little bit (excepting self-defense).

what i can think of however, is plenty of people who're upset at violence against women, who are outraged at pedophilia -- but they think spanking is ok, and is somehow a totally different thing, not violence at all, not even inappropriate force. and frankly, i don't see feminists at large actually having this on their agenda -- when they do seem to care about children as a matter of policy, it's all about pedophilia as well, and the incredibly common woman-on-child violence is a dirty little secret that is swept under the rug. google some time for hits about spanking and feminism, and you'll find vastly more hits about BDSM and its defense, together with conservative rants against all of what allegedly destroys the family (where feminism and anti-spanking movements are named separately), than you find feminist critique of spanking. i consider feminism's silence on the issue of spanking to be particularly suspicious, since it doesn't happen to fit well with the idea that men are the aggressors and women the victims.

maybe feminism shouldn't be about children but just about women; that'd be sort of ok by me -- though i find some issues hard to separate, especially in the areas of sexual abuse, and well, the battle of equality starts long before the age of majority. but then take children off the signs that purport to be against violence. it's long struck me as a token effort, and i dislike tokenism, especially when it uses children.

i agree that it seems harder for people to empathize with domestic than with stranger violence. i see it in myself; i do empathize just as much initially (if not more; i find abuse by loved ones so much more destructive than abuse by strangers), but i have difficulties maintaining that empathy when somebody stays in an abusive situation (assuming no death threats are involved), when somebody falls more than once for the abject apology route after the abuse, when somebody says "but i love him!". if anything, i think feminism needs to support those women more, because they obviously still have very bad tapes running in their heads with "stand by your man" as the soundtrack, and some fundamentally horribly damaging ideas about what love is.

and i wonder how much spanking has to answer for regarding those tapes, how much it is responsible for bad boundaries, and how much it has to do with raising men who become abusers. how can this possibly not be a feminist concern? at least be on the table for discussion?

[*] upon rereading i remembered that i've read sean connery is purported to have said that some women need slapping around. but upon googling this i see that that's not what he said. and while what he did say is questionable, i'd really like to see the full context for it before i count it as evidence.
redbird: closeup of me drinking tea, in a friend's kitchen (Default)

[personal profile] redbird 2006-06-12 09:56 pm (UTC)(link)
If you don't know anyone who thinks it's okay for men to use force to control their wives and children, that's probably at least in part because social groups are self-selecting.

I don't know anyone personally who argues that whites are superior to non-whites and should get first shot at jobs and places in good schools, or who advocates segretation of residential neighborhoods and keeping blacks out of trade unions. That doesn't mean such people no longer exist, that discrimination no longer happens, or even that thugs never firebomb homes sold to black families in previously all-white neighborhoods.

I see a lot of very casual advocacy of spanking online, usually of the template "I saw a parent [usually but not always a mother] in a public place with a rowdy or disobedient child(ren). The child should have been immediately spanked and taken home." I have no way of knowing what percentage of the people saying these things have children themselves, what percentage of them were spanked when they were children, nor yet how seriously they mean it. But there's plenty of "children who behave inappropriately should be spanked" (for widely varying values of "inappropriately," and for values of "chidren" ranging from infants up to early teens).
ext_481: origami crane (Default)

[identity profile] pir-anha.livejournal.com 2006-06-12 10:19 pm (UTC)(link)
when i said "i don't know anyone" i wasn't talking about my social circle; i know that is extremely selective, more so than most probably. sorry, the "know" was imprecise and probably misleading.

i was talking about not encountering anyone who thinks male-on-female violence is ok. i do encounter racist and sexist people all the time (the net is full of them), so it's not like i live entirely on cloud nine.

i also don't mean to imply that me not knowing any means they don't exist -- *boggle*. why would you even think that? shouldn't you know me better by now? maybe not. i was wondering just whom such a protest was designed to wake up, and whether it was likely that it could, because those people seem to not exactly be hip to college protests.
redbird: closeup of me drinking tea, in a friend's kitchen (Default)

[personal profile] redbird 2006-06-12 10:26 pm (UTC)(link)
I wasn't sure what you meant by "don't know anyone," and thinking also that people with opinions that they consider unpopular may be more likely to express them privately, to people they consider friends, than in googleable contexts.
ext_481: origami crane (Default)

[identity profile] pir-anha.livejournal.com 2006-06-12 10:50 pm (UTC)(link)
yes, that's definitely much more likely.

hey, at least those opinions are unpopular now. that's progress.