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



## tufty79 (Mar 5, 2011)

sorry for the very very short notice - i sort of assumed that someone'd have posted this already 




12pm: Meet at Hyde Park (Speakers Corner End Nearest Tube: 1 Minute from Marble Arch)

1.30pm: March sets off – Marching through central London towards TSQ

3.30 – 5pm: Rally and Celebration in Trafalgar Square (Nearest Tubes: Piccadilly Circus, Leicester Square, and Charing Cross)

5pm – 1am: Food and Networking Party at The 52 Club, 52 Gower Street, WC1E6EB; a wheelchair accessible venue. ALL welcome. Food, performances, swimming pool, DJs and chill–out space. Entry fee on the door – donation if unwaged, £5 low–waged and £12 waged. There will be stewards escorting women to after–party after the Rally. 



> A woman’s right to live free from violence and / or the fear of violence has not been achieved. Women continue to be attacked and violated in many different ways, in our homes, on our streets, on our public transport, at our places of work. The government, the TV and newspapers do very little to address this issue; instead they often blame women for wearing the wrong clothes or being in the wrong place.
> 
> If you think this needs to change, then join us on a public demonstration to show those in power that it’s just not good enough! We need to show our mass dissatisfaction; we need to be strong together and in large numbers. Unity is strength; the voices of many are louder together than a single voice.
> 
> ...



    "We are at a threshold. We are going to see change. If we can create the vision in our heart, it will spread. As women of wisdom we cannot be divided. As bringers of light, we have no choice but to join together." ~ Agness Baker Pilgrim


----------



## Greebo (Mar 5, 2011)

Nice to know that it's happening.  

Unfortunately you're likely to find that a lot of women need advance notice (at least a week, and preferably a month) if they are to have a chance of being able to turn up.  

IMHO you can't just rely on somebody else doing what you think needs to be done - next time, get in there sooner, if possible!


----------



## tufty79 (Mar 5, 2011)

i know 
it only occurred to me to look this morning to see if it was on here. tbf, my brain isn't functioning properly at the moment, and hasn't been for a few weeks.


----------



## TopCat (Mar 5, 2011)

Are women not responsible for beating children more than men in the UK? Minute by minute, hour by hour?


----------



## TopCat (Mar 5, 2011)

Enough children are putting across that they have been the victims of women sexually abusing them too. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-12157279


----------



## tufty79 (Mar 5, 2011)

fair points, topcat, and i'm not disputing them


----------



## TopCat (Mar 5, 2011)

Why would you provide stewards to escort women from the rally up Oxford Street to the after party? Is it alleged that Oxford Street is a dangerous place to be? Or a scaremongering tactic or something else?


----------



## TopCat (Mar 5, 2011)

If you have a demo like this, orgasnised by a group like that, that totally slags men off _as a gender_, expect a response. 

I bet they don't get a million women either. More like 750.


----------



## tufty79 (Mar 5, 2011)

for me.. i'd quite like to be escorted because i've got issues with crowds and general outdoorsness at the moment. if i'm stupid enough to go to a rally that's going to have crowds in, i don't want to be navigating oxford fucking street on a saturday on my own.
i know that oxford street isn't dangerous. 

are you trolling a little bit, tc?


----------



## _angel_ (Mar 5, 2011)

Of course women do shit things, but why are you so particularly threatened by this topcat?


----------



## TopCat (Mar 5, 2011)

I find the OP a troll to be honest. Up there with Reclaim the Night. It's offensive.


----------



## TopCat (Mar 5, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> Of course women do shit things, but why are you so particularly threatened by this topcat?


 
Stop projecting angel. I am not threatened by this at all.


----------



## _angel_ (Mar 5, 2011)

TopCat said:


> Stop projecting angel. I am not threatened by this at all.


 
Yeah because that's really the way you're coming across on this thread. Tbh these marches are not my cup of tea, but you have made several posts on here sounding quite upset about the principle of them, that's all.


----------



## Guineveretoo (Mar 5, 2011)

http://www.millionwomenrise.com/

This has been going for a few years, and is an international event, so that the million are not supposed to be all in London! 

It's raising the profile of male violence against women, across the world, and about empowering women.

It has a facebook page as well.


----------



## TopCat (Mar 5, 2011)

I am not upset at all angel. This is a forum for debate. The OP has huge offensive contradictions present that I challenged. Why do you not address the points, enter a debate rather than projecting onto me your feelings?


----------



## tufty79 (Mar 5, 2011)

TopCat said:


> I find the OP a troll to be honest.


 
i apologies, it wasn't meant to be.  it was supposed to simply be a post about an event, and that was it.   i think maybe a separate thread might be suitable for discussing the wrong/right/offensiveness/otherwise of this sort of march?
i'm leaving this thread alone now, i think.


----------



## emma goldman (Mar 5, 2011)

Stewards will be escorting women from traflagar square to the venue because women will be coming from all over the country to attend this march and may not know where gower st is.
And as an aside oxford st is a dangerous place sometimes, depending who you are, what time it is and whats going on in oxford st at that patricular time.


----------



## emanymton (Mar 5, 2011)

emma goldman said:


> And as an aside oxford st is a dangerous place sometimes, depending who you are, what time it is and whats going on in oxford st at that patricular time.


Not to side with TC but this claim is general it could be made about anywhere


----------



## stethoscope (Mar 5, 2011)

tufty79 said:


> i apologies, it wasn't meant to be.  it was supposed to simply be a post about an event, and that was it.   i think maybe a separate thread might be suitable for discussing the wrong/right/offensiveness/otherwise of this sort of march?
> 
> *i'm leaving this thread alone now, i think.*


 
You shouldn't have to, tufty.


Personally, well Million Women Rise isn't really my thing, although I've been on RTN's in the past.


----------



## newbie (Mar 5, 2011)

emma goldman said:


> Stewards will be escorting women from traflagar square to the venue because women will be coming from all over the country to attend this march and may not know where gower st is.
> And as an aside oxford st is a dangerous place sometimes, depending who you are, what time it is and whats going on in oxford st at that patricular time.


 
Traf Sq to Gower St via Oxford St?  Good luck with that


----------



## London_Calling (Mar 5, 2011)

LOL at women going on a march along Oxford Street on  a Sat afternoon.


----------



## stethoscope (Mar 5, 2011)

stephj said:


> Personally, well Million Women Rise isn't really my thing, although I've been on RTN's in the past.


 
That said, the reason why I stopped going to RTN's was not only because of their middle-class centricity, but also because of the attitudes in the past expressed towards sex workers and trans women.


----------



## emma goldman (Mar 5, 2011)

emanymton said:


> Not to side with TC but this claim is general it could be made about anywhere


Exactly.


----------



## emma goldman (Mar 5, 2011)

stephj said:


> That said, the reason why I stopped going to RTN's was not only because of their middle-class centricity, but also because of the attitudes in the past expressed towards sex workers and trans women.


I agree totally with you about RTN, but in defence of MWR there is nothing middle class about it. It is organised by a collective of predominantly working class black women and women of all ethnicities, nationalities and sexualities are well represented on the march.
There has been issues around trans inclusion and sex work though.


----------



## Greebo (Mar 5, 2011)

(BTW welcome for coming out of the shadows.)  Okay, emma goldman, if you know so much about this march, how come you didn't get around to mentioning it early enough to enable a few more women to choose whether to show up for it?


----------



## emma goldman (Mar 5, 2011)

i havent had any internet for a few months. i am currently using the internet at work, which is why i cant go on the march today. i do usually go on the mwr march and will go to the benefit tonight. Because my saturday job is so boring i usually spend my time surfing and lurking on political forums. i saw the post about mwr and thought i'd bite the bullet and get involved.


----------



## trashpony (Mar 5, 2011)

Greebo said:


> (BTW welcome for coming out of the shadows.)  Okay, emma goldman, if you know so much about this march, how come you didn't get around to mentioning it early enough to enable a few more women to choose whether to show up for it?


 
I didn't mention it on this board because I get sick to death of TopCat's posts on the subject of violence against women tbh. I have spoken to a lot of women about it on other boards though


----------



## stethoscope (Mar 5, 2011)

trashpony said:


> I didn't mention it on this board because I get sick to death of TopCat's posts on the subject of violence against women tbh. I have spoken to a lot of women about it on other boards though


 
Yeah, know what you mean.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 5, 2011)

trashpony said:


> I didn't mention it on this board because I get sick to death of TopCat's posts on the subject of violence against women tbh. I have spoken to a lot of women about it on other boards though


 
He is a *bit* predictable on the subject.


----------



## emma goldman (Mar 5, 2011)

theres this feminist festival http://www.qmsu.org/ents/event/674/?skin=TesterHome&template=Home in a few weeks if people are interested.


----------



## Guineveretoo (Mar 5, 2011)

I didn't put it up because I am bored with the way that anything deemed as "political" on these boards is torn apart by certain posters, examined and, often, spat at, with attacks levelled against the person advertising the event, even if all they are trying to do is to share an event with others who might want to know.


----------



## Deareg (Mar 5, 2011)

Good luck, I hope it goes well.


----------



## TopCat (Mar 5, 2011)

trashpony said:


> I didn't mention it on this board because I get sick to death of TopCat's posts on the subject of violence against women tbh. I have spoken to a lot of women about it on other boards though


 
Nice attempted smear that. Says more about you though.


----------



## smokedout (Mar 5, 2011)

Guineveretoo said:


> I didn't put it up because I am bored with the way that anything deemed as "political" on these boards is torn apart by certain posters, examined and, often, spat at, with attacks levelled against the person advertising the event, even if all they are trying to do is to share an event with others who might want to know.



if only we had a separate forum where events could be announced and any discussion was limited


----------



## stethoscope (Mar 5, 2011)

smokedout said:


> if only we had a separate forum where events could be announced and any discussion was limited



Yes, we need this announce calendar or whatever.


----------



## Corax (Mar 5, 2011)

I don't object to marches like this or find them offensive - quite the opposite, I think it's a good thing.  

But I do think it's a shame, a missed opportunity maybe, to make it about 'violence by men against women', rather than a broader statement such as 'violence in the home'.

Anyway, I hope it went well and there was a good turn-out.


----------



## trashpony (Mar 5, 2011)

TopCat said:


> Nice attempted smear that. Says more about you though.


 
Really? I'm not the only woman who feels like that I can assure you. I've stopped posting on this board about violence against women or rape or anything like that because I get so sick of being belittled and silenced that I don't discuss those subjects on here any more. 

However - it's not just you but you are one of the main perpetrators.

ETA and I don't know why you mentioned violence against children. That's not what this march is about


----------



## pk (Mar 5, 2011)

In Brighton the other day I saw two gay lasses having a right old punch up. This was outside the Sealife Centre. Gawd knows what they must be like at home.

This thread reminded me of that incident. It was a shocker!


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 5, 2011)

trashpony said:


> Really? I'm not the only woman who feels like that I can assure you. I've stopped posting on this board about violence against women or rape or anything like that because I get so sick of being belittled and silenced that I don't discuss those subjects on here any more.
> 
> However - it's not just you but you are one of the main perpetrators.
> 
> ETA and I don't know why you mentioned violence against children. That's not what this march is about


 
from the OP 'Together and united we are ending male violence against women and children.'

This day and associated actions cause divisiveness every year. Plenty of blokes going 'Hold on a minute, I'm not a cunt etc etc this is man bashing stuff'

I can see that the wording and implications can lead to backs being put up but I don't think the aim here is to smear and slag off a whole gender.


----------



## AverageJoe (Mar 5, 2011)

Oh my.

In a month (or two) that has seen the attempted, and possible liberation of the Middle East and North Africa you guys decide to run a rally telling us that its ONLY men that are the harmbringers to families.

Fucks sake. 

As an abused man, it disappoints me more that you cant galvanise yourself and organise this properly on the boards, but that you have to stick to the same old Dogma that its us men that are the cunts in UK society. its not. People cant be cunt regardless of sex - have a look at any town in the UK after closing time. I am not saying that you shouldnt be doing what you are doing, but just tarring all men with the 'shit' brush is counter productive.

Plus, who's going to be escorting you? Male police? The wife beating cunts eh...


----------



## trashpony (Mar 5, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> from the OP 'Together and united we are ending male violence against women and children.'
> 
> This day and associated actions cause divisiveness every year. Plenty of blokes going 'Hold on a minute, I'm not a cunt etc etc this is man bashing stuff'
> 
> I can see that the wording and implications can lead to backs being put up but I don't think the aim here is to smear and slag off a whole gender.



Apologies  and no, the aim is not to smear and slag off a whole gender at all. Most woman I know who've been on the march today are married or in heterosexual long term relationships so aren't at all the man haters that some people seem to think


----------



## trashpony (Mar 5, 2011)

AverageJoe said:


> Oh my.
> 
> In a month (or two) that has seen the attempted, and possible liberation of the Middle East and North Africa you guys decide to run a rally telling us that its ONLY men that are the harmbringers to families.
> 
> ...


 
And time to hide the thread


----------



## AverageJoe (Mar 5, 2011)

I agree


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 5, 2011)

Do the figures bear out an equal level of femal on male violence as to male on female violence?

I'm not even a feminist by self description but perhaps male comrades should at least be wary of knee jerkish 'don't put it all on us!' stuff. Because thats not what this is imo despite some perhaps inflammatory language.


----------



## trashpony (Mar 5, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> Do the figures bear out an equal level of femal on male violence as to male on female violence?
> 
> I'm not even a feminist by self description but perhaps male comrades should at least be wary of knee jerkish 'don't put it all on us!' stuff. Because thats not what this is imo despite some perhaps inflammatory language.


 
It's about 75% women murdered by male partners if you're talking about murder. And of course rape is used as a weapon in many conflicts. Every week, on average of two women are murdered by their partners in the UK.

I'm not defending any women who use violence against their partners Average Joe. But your horrible experience doesn't alter the fact that it's much, much rarer for men to be in the situation you were in. Violence is horrible and wrong. Whatever the gender of the attacker.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 5, 2011)

yes I was pretty sure the figures would bear out a disproportion. I think the beef here is a perception that all men are being tarred with the brush- something that probably rankles a lot more with leftist males because 'femenist' label or no we are holding political ideas that are against inequality and the gross expressions of violence that are part and parcel of unequal social or economic relations (as a whole). 'I'm not like that' doesn't change the reality of a situation of course, but in a moment of libdemmery I can see why the OP might wind people up- but then leftist language is often confrontational and challenging.


----------



## AverageJoe (Mar 5, 2011)

trashpony said:


> And of course rape is used as a weapon in many conflicts. Every week, on average of two women are murdered by their partners in the UK.
> 
> I'm not defending any women who use violence against their partners Average Joe. But your horrible experience doesn't alter the fact that it's much, much rarer for men to be in the situation you were in. Violence is horrible and wrong. Whatever the gender of the attacker.


 
I think you are wrong on 2 points.

1. the first comment you make is a global stat and not a UK stat. 
2. The second one, whilst undoubtably accurate does count the number of women abused and punched about by men, and neither does it count the numnber of women that beat men, meet men in bars just to get them to buy drinks, the number of the new wave of 'cheat detectives' that entice men with their wares and then blackmail them etc etc etc, the number of Loose Women type "men are shit programs", the number of adverts on TV that show men to be the lesser species, the theories that men have a lower pain threshold, the theories that men are just after one thing, etc etc etc etcbloodycentra.

Dont get me wrong. I abhor violece of all forms. ESPECIALLY against women, but to just do this kind of thing - and I know I have a bee in my bonnet and may not be thinking as wisely as a lot of more educated people on these forums - its just fucking.....well, its not even wrong. Its just misguided. 

In my opinion anyway, and if others think I am wrong then I apologise.

In the meantime I am off to rape my daughter - I mean, give her a bath.


----------



## stethoscope (Mar 5, 2011)

trashpony said:


> And time to hide the thread


 
But why?

I'm genuinely sorry to hear that Joe has been the victim of abuse himself, but I don't see any such campaign blaming ONLY and ALL men, merely pointing out the specific problem of male violence on women. And there is a problem across all patriarchal societies of this, and it is disproportionate against women. A product of historical and continuing unequal power and inequality that exists between genders.

And at the same time, that does not negate any of the importance in my eyes of other forms and dynamics of violence either that TC or others describe. And I acknowledge why gender based analysis only goes so far in this stuff.

I certainly share trashy's frustration in that as someone who joined urban viewing it as a left-leaning political board, that discussion from woman's politic/feminist perspectives might be more possible, and yet more than few times unfortunately such discussions seem to be silenced or very difficult for various reasons


----------



## AverageJoe (Mar 5, 2011)

trashpony said:


> And of course rape is used as a weapon in many conflicts. Every week, on average of two women are murdered by their partners in the UK.
> 
> I'm not defending any women who use violence against their partners Average Joe. But your horrible experience doesn't alter the fact that it's much, much rarer for men to be in the situation you were in. Violence is horrible and wrong. Whatever the gender of the attacker.


 
I think you are wrong on 2 points.

1. the first comment you make is a global stat and not a UK stat. 
2. The second one, whilst undoubtably accurate does count the number of women abused and punched about by men, and neither does it count the numnber of women that beat men, meet men in bars just to get them to buy drinks, the number of the new wave of 'cheat detectives' that entice men with their wares and then blackmail them etc etc etc, the number of Loose Women type "men are shit programs", the number of adverts on TV that show men to be the lesser species, the theories that men have a lower pain threshold, the theories that men are just after one thing, etc etc etc etcbloodycentra.

Dont get me wrong. I abhor violece of all forms. ESPECIALLY against women, but to just do this kind of thing - and I know I have a bee in my bonnet and may not be thinking as wisely as a lot of more educated people on these forums - its just fucking.....well, its not even wrong. Its just misguided. 

In my opinion anyway, and if others think I am wrong then I apologise.

In the meantime I am off to rape my daughter - I mean, give her a bath.


----------



## wtfftw (Mar 5, 2011)

Threads that go like this make me completely inarticulate.


----------



## stethoscope (Mar 5, 2011)

AverageJoe said:


> In the meantime I am off to rape my daughter - I mean, give her a bath.


 
What a stupid fucking comment.


----------



## _angel_ (Mar 5, 2011)

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


----------



## stethoscope (Mar 5, 2011)

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.


----------



## AverageJoe (Mar 5, 2011)

stephj said:


> What a stupid fucking comment.


 
To be fair stephj it probably was in hindsight. I posted in anger/frustration. Some people would just delete the comment, but I'll keep it up as an example of my frustration.

I obviously dont mean it.


----------



## _angel_ (Mar 5, 2011)

stephj said:


> 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'
> ...


 It does seem a bit like any mention of male violence against women cannot be discussed because women can hit men too...


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 5, 2011)

positions don't have to be that entrenched steph. I call a big healthy bolshevik self criticism on both sides. That always clears the air


----------



## stethoscope (Mar 5, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> positions don't have to be that entrenched steph. I call a big healthy bolshevik self criticism on both sides. That always clears the air


 
Yeah, I know DC.


But sometimes....

It's not just about teh fucking menz!


----------



## smokedout (Mar 5, 2011)

AverageJoe said:


> meet men in bars just to get them to buy drinks, the number of the new wave of 'cheat detectives' that entice men with their wares and then blackmail them etc etc etc, the number of Loose Women type "men are shit programs", the number of adverts on TV that show men to be the lesser species,



hmm, quite revealing


----------



## trashpony (Mar 5, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> It does seem a bit like any mention of male violence against women cannot be discussed because women can hit men too...


 
Yeah it does and that's why I am so tired of having this conversation over and over again. And actually I find it really offensive to be called a man hater because I'm a feminist. I'm a straight woman ffs. So either I'm a complete masochist or maybe I'd just like this to be an issue that isn't undermined and derided on a mixed, supposedly left-leaning board?


----------



## wtfftw (Mar 5, 2011)

OWM


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 5, 2011)

Loose Women is largely mumsy-tory* stuff and the attitude to men displayed is not that 'they are shit' but that they are boys, eye candy and unintentionally funny because they are dumb. It's just the shoe on the other foot broadcast to a receptive audience.

*Except Carol who has wicked wicked eyes and a good leftist conscience from what I have seen


----------



## stethoscope (Mar 5, 2011)

Woman with an opinion/analysis that some men don't like, trashy.


Dangerous stuff and clearly has to be stamped out.


----------



## stethoscope (Mar 5, 2011)

The whole 'let's bring up Loose Women or such as a comparison' is such a load of bollocks too. Sorry Joe but it really is.


----------



## Deareg (Mar 5, 2011)

stephj said:


> The whole 'let's bring up Loose Women or such as a comparison' is such a load of bollocks too. Sorry Joe but it really is.


 
He sounded like one of those whites who always complain about programmes aimed at the black community.


----------



## Corax (Mar 5, 2011)

trashpony said:


> It's about 75% women murdered by male partners if you're talking about murder. And of course rape is used as a weapon in many conflicts. Every week, on average of two women are murdered by their partners in the UK.
> 
> I'm not defending any women who use violence against their partners Average Joe. But your horrible experience doesn't alter the fact that it's much, much rarer for men to be in the situation you were in. *Violence is horrible and wrong. Whatever the gender of the attacker.*


 
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.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 5, 2011)

Really, noone gives a fuck about how right leaning people react to this sort of day and associated actions. We know they'll get the arse because that is the standard response from a right winger who is challenged over any kind of inequality. Th question has to be is the male leftist getting the arse with it voicing a genuine concern about unfair tarring or simply jerking the knee because 'that isn't me and it aint my politics'

And by asking that question I've fallen into the point steph made in her last response to me


----------



## stethoscope (Mar 5, 2011)




----------



## trashpony (Mar 5, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> Really, noone gives a fuck about how right leaning people react to this sort of day and associated actions. We know they'll get the arse because that is the standard response from a right winger who is challenged over any kind of inequality. Th question has to be is the male leftist getting the arse with it voicing a genuine concern about unfair tarring or simply jerking the knee because 'that isn't me and it aint my politics'
> 
> And by asking that question I've fallen into the point steph made in her last response to me



And another  for you dotty


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 5, 2011)

wtfftw said:


> Threads that go like this make me completely inarticulate.


 
innit, i can't be arsed with it.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 5, 2011)

Being left wing doesn't mean you can't (intentionally or not) act like a complete arse, or worse, whether or not you're a man.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 5, 2011)

of course not, but it should mean that when you do engage in chauvinism, anti-semitism or any other behaviour that reflects negative attitudes towards inequality then you'll be quicker to have a word with yourself.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 5, 2011)

It should do. it doesn't necessarily though.


----------



## Geri (Mar 5, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> *Except Carol who has wicked wicked eyes and *a good leftist conscience *from what I have seen


 
Carole Malone?


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 5, 2011)

Mgiffin. Shes never actually spouted m/l views or anything but as I recall she is pretty strongly l/w


----------



## AverageJoe (Mar 5, 2011)

Deareg said:


> He sounded like one of those whites who always complain about programmes aimed at the black community.


 
Oh. You got me totally sussed. Suprised I've been allowed on the boards so long


----------



## AverageJoe (Mar 5, 2011)

smokedout said:


> hmm, quite revealing


 
yeah, you can make anything seem "quite" revealing when you only partially quote. Genius. Any other insights Einstein?


----------



## Deareg (Mar 5, 2011)

AverageJoe said:


> Oh. You got me totally sussed. Suprised I've been allowed on the boards so long


 
No Joe, I don't believe for one minute that I have you sussed, everyone sometimes comes across the wrong way, and you quite probably have not expressed yourself well on this thread but that is what you sound like.


----------



## rover07 (Mar 5, 2011)

How did the march go? Good attendance?

Women have a right to expect to be able to walk down the street free from harassment or threat of violence.

Bleeting about 'it happens to men too, why are women complaining' is bollocks.


----------



## emanymton (Mar 5, 2011)

_angel_ said:


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



Is this a deliberate joke?

Despite the name I am a male poster and was going to post saying where does anything in the OP blame all men. But apparnalty all male poster have to assume it say all men are to blame so I can't.  

Anyway.

God I hate this 'but women hit men to argument'. Yep in some cases they do and in some cases children abuse their parents so that must mean child abuse should not deserve any special status different from other forms of violence right?


----------



## _angel_ (Mar 5, 2011)

rover07 said:


> How did the march go? Good attendance?
> 
> Women have a right to expect to be able to walk down the street free from harassment or threat of violence.
> 
> Bleeting about 'it happens to men too, why are women complaining' is bollocks.


 
Altho I don't think it would hurt to broaden these things to be simply against violence regardless of the gender of the person doing or receiving it... I do wonder quite what the specific grievance is of _some_ blokes to women organizing themselves. After all, there are any number of Father's Rights groups.. I can't say I can think of a similar thing for single mums, as opposed to single parents (probably somewhere they do exist). In fact given the  relentlessly bad stereotyping single mums get, I'm surprised there aren't more!


----------



## _angel_ (Mar 5, 2011)

emanymton said:


> Is this a deliberate joke?
> 
> Despite the name I am a male poster and was going to post saying where does anything in the OP blame all men. But apparnalty all male poster have to assume it say all men are to blame so I can't.
> 
> ...


 
I can't help thinking you have misunderstood what I was saying, a lot. But I may be confused.


----------



## JHE (Mar 5, 2011)

tufty79 said:


> 5pm – 1am: Food and Networking Party at The 52 Club, 52 Gower Street, WC1E6EB; a wheelchair accessible venue. ALL welcome.


 
"ALL" welcome at 52 Gower Street?  It must be a VERY big venue to accommodate a million women!


----------



## emanymton (Mar 5, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> I can't help thinking you have misunderstood what I was saying, a lot. But I may be confused.


Sorry probably just me, I found It quite amusing that you where (justifiably) complaining about men reading a generalisation about all men into the OP but from my reading of the post you generalised that all male posters where doing this. I don't think you really meant that it was just the way the post sounded, to me at least.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Mar 5, 2011)

trashpony said:


> Most woman I know who've been on the march today are married or in heterosexual long term relationships so aren't at all the man haters that some people seem to think


 
Some of their best friends are men, in fact.


----------



## Santino (Mar 5, 2011)

A woman was once mean to me.


----------



## _angel_ (Mar 5, 2011)

emanymton said:


> Sorry probably just me, I found It quite amusing that you where (justifiably) complaining about men reading a generalisation about all men into the OP but from my reading of the post you generalised that all male posters where doing this. I don't think you really meant that it was just the way the post sounded, to me at least.


 
No, I didn't mean that! I just wrote too quickly.


----------



## Guineveretoo (Mar 6, 2011)

JHE said:


> "ALL" welcome at 52 Gower Street?  It must be a VERY big venue to accommodate a million women!



The "million" is world wide, not in London. 

As indicated previously.  

This is an international movement, of which the London march and party were only a small part.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Mar 6, 2011)

Well, how did it go? The media seem to have ignored it, but they often do with demos.


----------



## Guineveretoo (Mar 6, 2011)

I don't know. I have mobility problems at the moment, so I didn't go.


----------



## Guineveretoo (Mar 6, 2011)

Here is one news report about it - http://www.demotix.com/news/611999/womens-march-highlights-violence-against-women-sri-lanka


----------



## tufty79 (Mar 6, 2011)

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 (Mar 6, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> 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 (Mar 6, 2011)

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 (Mar 6, 2011)

Clair De Lune said:


> 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 (Mar 6, 2011)

stephj said:


> 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'
> ...



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 (Mar 6, 2011)

Corax said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


 
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 (Mar 6, 2011)

Santino said:


> 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 (Mar 6, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> 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 (Mar 6, 2011)

Corax said:


> 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 (Mar 6, 2011)

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 (Mar 6, 2011)

because a lot of people have *no fucking idea*.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 6, 2011)

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 (Mar 6, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> 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 (Mar 6, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> 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 (Mar 6, 2011)

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 (Mar 6, 2011)

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 (Mar 6, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> the whole thing is very complicated.


 
This.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 6, 2011)

trashpony said:


> 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 (Mar 6, 2011)

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 (Mar 6, 2011)

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 (Mar 6, 2011)

Thora said:


> 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 (Mar 6, 2011)

trashpony said:


> 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 (Mar 6, 2011)

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 (Mar 6, 2011)

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 (Mar 6, 2011)

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


----------



## Corax (Mar 6, 2011)

Thora said:


> 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 (Mar 6, 2011)

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 (Mar 6, 2011)

stephj said:


> 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.  




Corax said:


> 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 (Mar 6, 2011)

Quimcunx: MRA - Men's Rights Activist.


----------



## quimcunx (Mar 6, 2011)

cheers.


----------



## Corax (Mar 6, 2011)

quimcunx said:


> 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.
> 
> Are there?   I wouldn't be so sure.


 
It's plausible that the overall numbers are more equal.  I'm pretty sure that more women are on the extreme end of domestic violence though.


----------



## trashpony (Mar 6, 2011)

Two women a week are murdered by their partners. I don't know how many men suffer from DV but certainly there aren't two a week dying from it. And the stats put it at 75/25 although there is the issue of reporting (having said that, apart from one woman, I don't know any woman who's been raped who's reported it). 

The march is to decry violence against women. It's not just domestic as I said earlier, it's about rape and assault being used as a war tactic and to try and raise awareness among young men that gang rapes really don't make them more masculine. If we educate the women, we educate the men.


----------



## stethoscope (Mar 6, 2011)

Corax said:


> 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?


 
A lot of marches do have men's sections - and men's engagement is growing reasonably well within both pro-feminist and these types of movements. You usually have a women's-only march, and then a mixed genders one too - when it comes to the women's-only part of the march, it's about men respecting the space. And all the men I've spoken to on such marches in the past have understood and supported that philosophy.

But, y'see, Corax, even by saying 'a more inclusive title', you're then effectively disempowering women and changing the dynamics of the march. And FFS, it's their space that they've created, and to a backdrop of a historically sexist/misogynistic society. It just comes across sometimes (not you Corax) like a load of bloody men being cry babies because some political organising doesn't include them. Well, women have had to put up with that from men for centuries.


----------



## Corax (Mar 6, 2011)

trashpony said:


> The march is to decry violence against women. It's not just domestic as I said earlier, *it's about rape and assault being used as a war tactic* and to try and raise awareness among young men that gang rapes really don't make them more masculine. If we educate the women, we educate the men.


 
That puts a very different spin on it.  Thanks trashpony.


----------



## rover07 (Mar 6, 2011)

Googling the Million Woman March. Brings up that it started as a response to the American Million Man March organised by Louis Farrakhan's Nation of Islam in the USA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Million_Man_March

Black women felt their voice was not being heard, in particular over domestic violence.


----------



## quimcunx (Mar 6, 2011)

trashpony said:


> Two women a week are murdered by their partners. I don't know how many men suffer from DV but certainly there aren't two a week dying from it. And the stats put it at 75/25 although there is the issue of reporting (having said that, apart from one woman, I don't know any woman who's been raped who's reported it).




Sorry I was talking about domestic abuse there, rather than physical violence.


----------



## Guineveretoo (Mar 6, 2011)

A Million Women Rise is fairly recent phenomenon, I guess building on the feminist movement in the West, but it is really about empowering, and giving a voice to, women in the developing world who are suffering from violence at the hands of men, and who are only just finding ways to express themselves, and to let the rest of the world know it is happening. 

It is supposed to be raising awareness of the issues worldwide, and less about women in Britain or, come to that, about men in Britain, some of whom appear to feel too threatened by the notion of women across the world standing up for their right to live peacefully and without threat.

This is not a 70s "Women's Group" or  or a 90s "Reclaim The Night" march. It's not a trade union thing, or a political party thing. It's a bunch of individual women and community groups who are trying to raise the issue and allow women across the world to express their views and to get the issue of violence against women into people's psyche and into the press, in the hope that it will be talked about it, and realise that is not about political correctness or hating men, or saying that all men are evil. But evil is being done across the world, to women and to children, and the Million Women Rise is an attempt to do something about it. If it doesn't fit with your beliefs, then stay away from it. The social in the evening says "all welcome" to show that men are welcome, too. It's about raising voices, that's all.

It's not well publicised in this country, but maybe that is because it is not really about this country, or maybe it is because the, male dominated print media, don't feel comfortable publicise something which they see as emasculating them in some way?


----------



## Guineveretoo (Mar 6, 2011)

rover07 said:


> Googling the Million Woman March. Brings up that it started as a response to the American Million Man March organised by Louis Farrakhan's Nation of Islam in the USA.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Million_Man_March
> 
> Black women felt their voice was not being heard, in particular over domestic violence.



I don't think the two things are connected. 

I believe the Million Woman March was a one off event, which happened some years before the Million Women Rise was started, and it was only in the States.


----------



## emma goldman (Mar 7, 2011)

photos here http://www.demotix.com/news/612590/million-women-march-london
and here http://www.demotiximages.com/news/611905/million-women-rise-march-through-london-mark-100th-iwd
i didnt go to the march but went to the benefit afterwards which was great. apparently this years march had been the biggest so far.


----------



## London_Calling (Mar 8, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> from the OP 'Together and united we are ending male violence against women and children.'
> 
> This day and associated actions cause divisiveness every year. Plenty of blokes going 'Hold on a minute, I'm not a cunt etc etc this is man bashing stuff'
> 
> I can see that the wording and implications can lead to backs being put up but I don't think the aim here is to smear and slag off a whole gender.


 
Same bollocks for 40 years. After a while you begin to realise it's not unintentional.


----------



## girasol (Mar 8, 2011)

Corax said:


> 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.



Why don't they organise a march then?

oh, I see Thora made the point already.  But just look at the statistics, from all over the WORLD!  If this minority is significant they need to organise themselves and make themselves heard, just like women do.  Why don't males victim of abuse approach the march organisers, for example?


----------



## girasol (Mar 8, 2011)

trashpony said:


> Two women a week are murdered by their partners. I don't know how many men suffer from DV but certainly there aren't two a week dying from it. And the stats put it at 75/25 although there is the issue of reporting (having said that, apart from one woman, I don't know any woman who's been raped who's reported it).
> 
> The march is to decry violence against women. It's not just domestic as I said earlier, it's about rape and assault being used as a war tactic and to try and raise awareness among young men that gang rapes really don't make them more masculine. If we educate the women, we educate the men.


 
And just from reading the intro page on the Million Women March website, also this:


> Internationally the situation is even worse, with millions killed at or before birth because they are female, and globally around one woman dies every minute from preventable pregnancy related causes.



Happy International Women's day!


----------



## Corax (Mar 8, 2011)

girasol said:


> Why don't they organise a march then?
> 
> *oh, I see Thora made the point already.*  But just look at the statistics, from all over the WORLD!  If this minority is significant they need to organise themselves and make themselves heard, just like women do.  Why don't males victim of abuse approach the march organisers, for example?


 
Not only did Thora ask it, but I then answered in response....

Are you reading the thread?


----------



## girasol (Mar 8, 2011)

Corax said:


> Not only did Thora ask it, but I then answered in response....
> 
> Are you reading the thread?


 
sorry, I was skim reading it, saw Thora's post, then got distracted with work, I apologise...

and I think stephj sums it up nicely



stephj said:


> A lot of marches do have men's sections - and men's engagement is growing reasonably well within both pro-feminist and these types of movements. You usually have a women's-only march, and then a mixed genders one too - when it comes to the women's-only part of the march, it's about men respecting the space. And all the men I've spoken to on such marches in the past have understood and supported that philosophy.
> 
> But, y'see, Corax, even by saying 'a more inclusive title', you're then effectively disempowering women and changing the dynamics of the march. And FFS, it's their space that they've created, and to a backdrop of a historically sexist/misogynistic society. It just comes across sometimes (not you Corax) like a load of bloody men being cry babies because some political organising doesn't include them. Well, women have had to put up with that from men for centuries.


----------



## trashpony (Mar 8, 2011)

quimcunx said:


> Sorry I was talking about domestic abuse there, rather than physical violence.


 
89% of DV victims are women


----------



## Corax (Mar 8, 2011)

stephj said:


> A lot of marches do have men's sections - and men's engagement is growing reasonably well within both pro-feminist and these types of movements. You usually have a women's-only march, and then a mixed genders one too - when it comes to the women's-only part of the march, it's about men respecting the space. And all the men I've spoken to on such marches in the past have understood and supported that philosophy.
> 
> But, y'see, Corax, even by saying 'a more inclusive title', you're then effectively disempowering women and changing the dynamics of the march. And FFS, it's their space that they've created, and to a backdrop of a historically sexist/misogynistic society. It just comes across sometimes (not you Corax) like a load of bloody men being cry babies because some political organising doesn't include them. *Well, women have had to put up with that from men for centuries.*



Whilst I appreciate some of the rest of your post, I'm afraid I've never been a fan of the 'people like us had to suffer, so now people like you have to pay' line.  I don't think it's the way forward.

"Bloody men being cry babies" makes me a little bit  in this context as well...


----------



## Thora (Mar 8, 2011)

Corax said:


> Whilst I appreciate some of the rest of your post, I'm afraid I've never been a fan of the 'people like us had to suffer, so now people like you have to pay' line.  I don't think it's the way forward.
> 
> "Bloody men being cry babies" makes me a little bit  in this context as well...


 
Not about making people like you pay, just not doing the hard work for you.


----------



## stethoscope (Mar 8, 2011)

Corax said:


> Whilst I appreciate some of the rest of your post, I'm afraid I've never been a fan of the 'people like us had to suffer, so now people like you have to pay' line.  I don't think it's the way forward.
> 
> "Bloody men being cry babies" makes me a little bit  in this context as well...


 
Well, I appreciate I could have perhaps chosen some better wording, but tbh Corax, you tend to become rather defensive over the years both in rl and online when discussing these sorts of issues - because men do exercise their privilege all the time over women in them.

Women have had to organise themselves to fight for such causes, so often with derision and opposition from men historically. And having done so, we're then told by men (of course I always refer to 'men' in a wider societal/cultural context, not as individuals) that we should be including them!


----------



## stethoscope (Mar 8, 2011)

And, it really helps when men actually acknowledge their privileges and fucking listen to our experiences/voices - that way at least unified ways forward are made much more possible. 

But, IME, whether it we women's groups or an Anarcha-Feminist group I was part of some years back, all of our attempts to make them inclusive and invite men along, always seemed to end up with the men drowning out women's voices. So, a lot of us tended to retreat back into women's only spaces again. Hence why whilst urban is certainly a better space than many political ones online, it's still not perfect.


----------



## Corax (Mar 8, 2011)

I don't think we've ever met IRL.  Are you confusing me with someone else?


----------



## stethoscope (Mar 8, 2011)

We haven't met irl - and I'm not talking about _you_.

When I said 'you tend to become defensive' above, I mean i.e. those of us women/feminists. We get defensive because we get tired of having to point out men's privilege in these discussions time and time again.


----------



## Corax (Mar 8, 2011)

stephj said:


> fucking listen to our experiences/voices


 
I think that's exactly what I've been doing on this thread - and believe me it has taken my understanding forward a step - which is why the choice of words seemed out of place in the context of the conversation we've been having.


----------



## Corax (Mar 8, 2011)

stephj said:


> We haven't met irl - and I'm not talking about _you_.


 
Ah - I've tripped up on a you plural - sorry.


----------



## nick h. (Mar 8, 2011)

It's good to hear that men were welcome this year. I would have liked to go but the wording on the poster I saw (before this thread started) seemed to make it clear it was for women only.

I've been attracted to feminism since I was a student and consider myself to be a feminist. But nobody I meet seems interested in the subject, and I can't remember the last time I encountered a woman who described herself as a feminist. Whenever I broach the subject I get accused of trying to push women into working when they would rather be spending their time mothering.

The feminists I met at University were my fellow students of English Literature. They were admirers of SCUM http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCUM_Manifesto and wore a double-headed axe around their necks, supposedly to render us all equal by chopping off penises. I wasn't so keen on that policy, but they made lots of inarguable points about male chauvinsim in literature and society which were quite an eye opener to me after ten years at boys' boarding schools. After I graduated I expected to hear feminist arguments in all walks of life. But it never happened, and I feel rather let down. 

It seems to me that once the broad mass of Western women had got something close to equal opportunities they lost interest in feminism and left it to a handful of extremists like Sheila Jeffreys who bang on about porn and anal sex and lap dancing and are easy to marginalise. Now that women here have got more or less what they want they don't seem minded to help their sisters in developing countries who are routinely bought and sold, beaten, raped, enslaved and kept under virtual house arrest. Or maybe they are but they're muzzled by a male-dominated media? I really have no idea.

When Blair invaded Iraq he gave a humanitarian justification based on the suffering of a minority of Iraqis. I would love to have seen feminists advance the argument that Blair should also have invaded scores of other countries on the grounds that the scale of the suffering and exploitation of women there is many times greater. I want to see feminists having such an influence in Western politics that it's perfectly normal to have UN sanctions against any country that doesn't give equal rights to women.  But I'm certain this will never happen. Not enough people care. Why don't they? I was hoping that the so-called Blair Babes would set a new agenda (and crucify the people who gave them their label) but it never happened, did it?


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 8, 2011)

capital co-opts your dissidence and sells it back to you nick. As 'girl power' or a che print t-shirt knocked out for a fiver but sourced for 10p from a sweatshop


----------



## stethoscope (Mar 8, 2011)

Corax said:


> Ah - I've tripped up on a you plural - sorry.


 
Sorry 

It's about looking at these things from a societal/cultural level of privilege/oppression politics, not the personal.

However, it's quite common as a woman discussing these issues to have to defend yourself pretty quickly against men often jumping straight in to accuse you of all sorts (TopCat did it here, Average Joe did it too), and yet women organising themselves to fight societal problems such as male violence against women or rape doesn't mean that they're not interested or think that for e.g. female domestic violence on men or male-on-male DV in gay relationships are not as equally important, it's just that we've had to organise amongst ourselves in order to make our own voices/experiences heard. Besides, I can't and wouldn't talk on behalf of say, DV and the dynamics of it within a gay male relationship.

It's fine for men to say 'you're not including us', but historically when you've had to organise yourself to get your voice heard and to then change aspects of society to the better because a large percentage of men have not seen any problem, then it's difficult to move forward sometimes in a unified/inclusive way. I see the derision and hostility that groups like Southall Black Sisters still have to put up with to this day - both misogynistic and racist.

All inclusive groups - men and women, black and white, straight and gay are a wonderful idea, and I embrace them, but getting equality of issues raised within them can be very difficult. Feminist groups over the years have had their own problems when speaking heavily on the behalf of white het middle class women (and working class, BME and LGBT women have had to form their own groups or fight to make their own voices heard). 

Similarly, I have a gay male friend that joined a Men's Rights group once because of the injustices he felt when he accepted his sexuality, split up from his wife and did not get access to his children - and found that particular Men's group to be homophobic - so, then Gay Men's groups gets formed because unity isn't very simple.


----------



## Corax (Mar 8, 2011)

I think the historical reasons for feminism are the core reason for the hostility that the subject inspires in some (often otherwise quite 'enlightened', for want of a better word) men.

The history is of course vitally important.  Feminism could not and does not exist in isolation to the original injustices that spawned it as a movement.  And because the two are inseparable, a lot of the rhetoric draws upon it.

The reaction that rhetoric can produce though, is one of "It wasn't me".  Some men will feel as though they are being blamed for the sins of others, purely because of their gender, and this will feel like stereotyping and sexism itself.

To make it perfectly clear though - I'm not condoning or excusing anything, I'm only offering what I think may be an explanation for something that some female posters have appeared to be baffled by.


----------



## stethoscope (Mar 8, 2011)

That happens in all circles tbh Corax... heterosexual people might get 'offended' because they feel they are blamed as a 'whole' by LGBT politics/activists for homophobia that exists in society, and etc. But, y'know, it's easy when someone who enjoys certain privileges over another (whether it be based on gender, class, sexuality, ethnicity) to get on the defensive when confronted by language and situations they don't like. Most of the time, it's because those that enjoy certain privileges just don't realise that the things they accept as granted aren't afforded to everyone.

None of this exists without history and context of course.


----------



## trashpony (Mar 8, 2011)

nick h. said:


> It's good to hear that men were welcome this year. I would have liked to go but the wording on the poster I saw (before this thread started) seemed to make it clear it was for women only.
> 
> I've been attracted to feminism since I was a student and consider myself to be a feminist. But nobody I meet seems interested in the subject, and I can't remember the last time I encountered a woman who described herself as a feminist. Whenever I broach the subject I get accused of trying to push women into working when they would rather be spending their time mothering.
> 
> ...


 
A lot of women care very passionately about feminist debate and discussion but don't tend to discuss them on mixed websites like this one. As I alluded to at the start of the thread, over the six years I've been here, women-only marches are derided and scorned, rape discussions always have men saying 'yeah but men get raped too' and while homophobia and racism is pretty much considered unacceptable, sexism is alive and thriving. It gets fucking boring having the same discussions with the same people over and over again. It's wearing actually - you feel like a lone voice in the wilderness and I have to admit that I've given up on the whole because I'm so bloody tired of being shouted down. 

If, however, you would like to discuss feminism on an active board which welcomes men, then PM me 

ETA: I think your perspective is really interesting and you would spark a very lively debate


----------



## stethoscope (Mar 8, 2011)

trashpony said:


> A lot of women care very passionately about feminist debate and discussion but don't tend to discuss them on mixed websites like this one. As I alluded to at the start of the thread, over the six years I've been here, women-only marches are derided and scorned, rape discussions always have men saying 'yeah but men get raped too' and while homophobia and racism is pretty much considered unacceptable, sexism is alive and thriving. It gets fucking boring having the same discussions with the same people over and over again. It's wearing actually - you feel like a lone voice in the wilderness and I have to admit that I've given up on the whole because I'm so bloody tired of being shouted down.



Yep, this trashy.


----------



## Corax (Mar 8, 2011)

trashpony said:


> It's wearing actually - you feel like a lone voice in the wilderness and I have to admit that I've given up on the whole because I'm so bloody tired of being shouted down.


 
If it's any consolation - it's not without purpose.  I distinctly remember getting involved with one of those threads some years ago and making a total arse out of myself - partly because I expressed myself badly, but also partly because I didn't really understand the issue like I thought I did.  By getting involved with these threads I've slowly learnt to some extent, and developed a better understanding.

I still feel like I'm walking on eggshells a bit, because I _do_ have misgivings about _*some*_ aspects of _*some*_ feminism (the practice rather than the theory), but I've certainly gained a better appreciation for the complexities than I did have.


----------



## nick h. (Mar 8, 2011)

trashpony said:


> A lot of women care very passionately about feminist debate and discussion but don't tend to discuss them on mixed websites like this one. As I alluded to at the start of the thread, over the six years I've been here, women-only marches are derided and scorned, rape discussions always have men saying 'yeah but men get raped too' and while homophobia and racism is pretty much considered unacceptable, sexism is alive and thriving. It gets fucking boring having the same discussions with the same people over and over again. It's wearing actually - you feel like a lone voice in the wilderness and I have to admit that I've given up on the whole because I'm so bloody tired of being shouted down.
> 
> If, however, you would like to discuss feminism on an active board which welcomes men, then PM me
> 
> ETA: I think your perspective is really interesting and you would spark a very lively debate



PM sent! 

Just seen a very timely story on C4 News about Int'l Women's Day. Jude Kelly, artistic director of the South Bank Centre (I think) said the world would be a better place for all if we had a mix of male and female values in peacekeeping and finance. Which pretty much mirrors my view that if we had gender balanced governments there'd be less war, corruption, greed and social inequality.  Kelly's opponent in the studio debate was Cristina Odone, the well-known confused Catholic. Her take was that there should be room in the world for women who want to be women as well as women who want to be men. The latter are the ones who succeed in the world of work. Which pretty much mirrors the 'get your tanks off my lawn' response I get when I tell mums or would-be mums that feminists have let us all down by achieving so little in the last few decades. You can't win, can you? The only certainty is that on the next International Women's Day no progress will have been made.


----------



## Corax (Mar 8, 2011)

nick h. said:


> Just seen a very timely story on C4 News about Int'l Women's Day. Jude Kelly, artistic director of the South Bank Centre (I think) said *the world would be a better place for all if we had a mix of male and female values in peacekeeping and finance. Which pretty much mirrors my view that if we had gender balanced governments there'd be less war, corruption, greed and social inequality*.  Kelly's opponent in the studio debate was Cristina Odone, the well-known confused Catholic. Her take was that there should be room in the world for women who want to be women as well as women who want to be men. The latter are the ones who succeed in the world of work. Which pretty much mirrors the 'get your tanks off my lawn' response I get when I tell mums or would-be mums that feminists have let us all down by achieving so little in the last few decades. You can't win, can you? The only certainty is that on the next International Women's Day no progress will have been made.


 
This I disagree with, but it's too much of a tangent - starting a new thread.  

Voila:  http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/th...ere-calling-the-shots?p=11579813#post11579813


----------



## trashpony (Mar 8, 2011)

Corax said:


> If it's any consolation - it's not without purpose.  I distinctly remember getting involved with one of those threads some years ago and making a total arse out of myself - partly because I expressed myself badly, but also partly because I didn't really understand the issue like I thought I did.  By getting involved with these threads I've slowly learnt to some extent, and developed a better understanding.
> 
> I still feel like I'm walking on eggshells a bit, because I _do_ have misgivings about _*some*_ aspects of _*some*_ feminism (the practice rather than the theory), but I've certainly gained a better appreciation for the complexities than I did have.


 
Thank you. That actually means a lot to me <comes over all Gwynnie> I really, really welcome debate (and have enjoyed your contributions on this thread). But I can't cope with rubbishing


----------



## stethoscope (Mar 8, 2011)

Corax said:


> If it's any consolation - it's not without purpose.  I distinctly remember getting involved with one of those threads some years ago and making a total arse out of myself - partly because I expressed myself badly, but also partly because I didn't really understand the issue like I thought I did.  By getting involved with these threads I've slowly learnt to some extent, and developed a better understanding.
> 
> I still feel like I'm walking on eggshells a bit, because I _do_ have misgivings about _*some*_ aspects of _*some*_ feminism (the practice rather than the theory), but I've certainly gained a better appreciation for the complexities than I did have.


 
And it's appreciated Corax. Despite that I may come across a bit aggressive in some places on here, y'know I'm actually a quiet and nice person irl 

Ultimately, if some aspects of feminism and women's politics didn't upset men, then it wouldn't exist


----------

