![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
How many men, adolescents included, don't understand what things hurt other people? How many don't understand the word "no"? 99% of this group is mentally disabled and probably in an institution somewhere.
The rest know. The problem is not that they don't know; the core problem is that they don't care enough to abandon their predatory urges.
The secondary problem is that not nearly enough is done to stop them from following their predatory urges. Clearly, the justice system (where one with relevant laws even exists, which is not the case in some places) is not enough to stop them: The threat of incarceration or even life in prison is not enough. Even actual incarceration is not enough; as some continue their predatory behavior once they get out, or while they're still in prison.
Upbringing and the half-assed social injunctions against predatory behavior are not enough: everybody learns, as a toddler, to not hit others, and such rules and expectations are reinforced in schools and by the law...but not by the whole of society. The glorification of violence in sports, mainstream media, and pornography send a different message. The bro conversations about successful sexual harrassment and rape exploits send the opposite message. What men really learn is to try to get away with indulging their predatory urges or to indulge them vicariously, through pornography, which shades all the way up to the softcore gratuitous violence in movies.
So what is the solution to this long-standing problem? It's not to ask or even tell men to behave. The answer is to gain and maintain power over ourselves to the extent that we needn't ask them for a goddamned thing. To have the power to first avoid and prevent, and, failing those, defend against their predation.
And that will never be achieved via negotiation with men. And it won't be achieved with personal solutions like mace, self-defense classes, and restricting our own freedom. Nor will it be achieved with mainstream political solutions like new laws or harsher prison sentences. The political system of every major nation on Earth exists in the context of a patriarchal society, and nothing done via these political systems can destroy patriarchy any more than the political systems can destroy the societies themselves; the political systems are as patriarchal as the societies that have created them.
The solution is extra-political action. Action that centers females and our concrete concerns, not mere ideals like "freedom" and "equality," which also have not done enough to curb male violence. Patriarchy ensures the freedom of men above the freedom of everyone else, so "freedom" as a political concept in a patriarchal society is a joke. When was the last time you could go anywhere you wanted without fear of male violence? That's a lack of freedom. Ever choose what you are going to wear or not wear for fear of sexual harassment or being seen as seductive or slutty? That's a lack of freedom. Efficacious political action is not about negotiating with men because they as a group will never give up enough of their freedom to nullify the threat of their predatory behavior.
And finally, their freedom must be curtailed. If not even the threat of prison will stop them, it is obvious that they cannot be trusted. Not a single life must be risked to allow them continued freedom, not only the freedom of movement but the freedom to group up and organize into gangs, political bodies (the way pretty much every government on Earth was established), and everything in between, which they do to curtail everyone else's freedom, be it with laws or physical violence.
What power do women have to curtail men's freedom, or to improve the freedom of women and girls? The power of life, first of all. There's nothing so stupid and self-destructive as continuing to birth males since they all grow up to be men. Everyone's male rapist, murderer, torturer, trafficker, pimp, kidnapper, etc. was once someone's baby boy. Why continue producing baby boys, or, at least, why so many? Abortion is legal in some parts of the world, and infanticide is easy to get away with in others.
Yes, no one wants to kill an innocent child. But how likely is that child to remain innocent? To never even sexually harass someone, who then potentially has to deal with that memory, with that sensation in her body perhaps, for the rest of her life? Some males commit violent crimes before they even reach adulthood. They come from all walks of life, so no kind of upbringing or sociopolitical circumstance is guaranteed to prevent the violence. In places with low rates of predatory male behavior, maybe the abortion/infanticide is not so necessary. In places where predatory male behavior is an epidemic (as it is here, in the United States), it is a necessity.
Castration is another tool to curtail men's predatory behavior. Some repeat rapists have even castrated themselves to stop raping, testament to what shit the "justice" system is at stopping violence. Altering the nutrition of juvenile males prevents them from developing the advantage in strength and body size they so often use against us as they mature. Isolation from other males prevents the development of gangs (be they street gangs, trafficking networks, or political bodies), and the sharing of ideas, strategies, and plans for violence and destruction.
Does it sound awful? It is. Wouldn't it be great if males would just stop being so violent? Yes, but they won't. Thousands of years of human history have proven this. Only a fool would believe that they will stop on their own at this point. For every one who is not violent, another is, and there is no way to tell them apart until after they strike. Why wait around for it? To be "fair" to the harmless men?
Is it "fair" that potential victims have to live in fear; is that an acceptable price for this "fairness"? Is it fair to the actual victims, whose victimization could have been prevented for the price of a bit of social engineering and some abortions? I say that when males as a group get their rates of violence down to women's rates, then I'll care about being "fair" to them. When a large enough portion of a group cannot be trusted, fairness goes out the window. Safety of those far less likely to offend is more important.
And what about you? Whose interests do you value? Whose interests do you serve with your behavior, whose interests do you promote with your words, whose interests form the foundation of your sociopolitical commitments? Is it the interests of the vulnerable and the trustworthy?
Feminism based on asking or telling men to behave is feminism that doesn't work.
The rest know. The problem is not that they don't know; the core problem is that they don't care enough to abandon their predatory urges.
The secondary problem is that not nearly enough is done to stop them from following their predatory urges. Clearly, the justice system (where one with relevant laws even exists, which is not the case in some places) is not enough to stop them: The threat of incarceration or even life in prison is not enough. Even actual incarceration is not enough; as some continue their predatory behavior once they get out, or while they're still in prison.
Upbringing and the half-assed social injunctions against predatory behavior are not enough: everybody learns, as a toddler, to not hit others, and such rules and expectations are reinforced in schools and by the law...but not by the whole of society. The glorification of violence in sports, mainstream media, and pornography send a different message. The bro conversations about successful sexual harrassment and rape exploits send the opposite message. What men really learn is to try to get away with indulging their predatory urges or to indulge them vicariously, through pornography, which shades all the way up to the softcore gratuitous violence in movies.
So what is the solution to this long-standing problem? It's not to ask or even tell men to behave. The answer is to gain and maintain power over ourselves to the extent that we needn't ask them for a goddamned thing. To have the power to first avoid and prevent, and, failing those, defend against their predation.
And that will never be achieved via negotiation with men. And it won't be achieved with personal solutions like mace, self-defense classes, and restricting our own freedom. Nor will it be achieved with mainstream political solutions like new laws or harsher prison sentences. The political system of every major nation on Earth exists in the context of a patriarchal society, and nothing done via these political systems can destroy patriarchy any more than the political systems can destroy the societies themselves; the political systems are as patriarchal as the societies that have created them.
The solution is extra-political action. Action that centers females and our concrete concerns, not mere ideals like "freedom" and "equality," which also have not done enough to curb male violence. Patriarchy ensures the freedom of men above the freedom of everyone else, so "freedom" as a political concept in a patriarchal society is a joke. When was the last time you could go anywhere you wanted without fear of male violence? That's a lack of freedom. Ever choose what you are going to wear or not wear for fear of sexual harassment or being seen as seductive or slutty? That's a lack of freedom. Efficacious political action is not about negotiating with men because they as a group will never give up enough of their freedom to nullify the threat of their predatory behavior.
And finally, their freedom must be curtailed. If not even the threat of prison will stop them, it is obvious that they cannot be trusted. Not a single life must be risked to allow them continued freedom, not only the freedom of movement but the freedom to group up and organize into gangs, political bodies (the way pretty much every government on Earth was established), and everything in between, which they do to curtail everyone else's freedom, be it with laws or physical violence.
What power do women have to curtail men's freedom, or to improve the freedom of women and girls? The power of life, first of all. There's nothing so stupid and self-destructive as continuing to birth males since they all grow up to be men. Everyone's male rapist, murderer, torturer, trafficker, pimp, kidnapper, etc. was once someone's baby boy. Why continue producing baby boys, or, at least, why so many? Abortion is legal in some parts of the world, and infanticide is easy to get away with in others.
Yes, no one wants to kill an innocent child. But how likely is that child to remain innocent? To never even sexually harass someone, who then potentially has to deal with that memory, with that sensation in her body perhaps, for the rest of her life? Some males commit violent crimes before they even reach adulthood. They come from all walks of life, so no kind of upbringing or sociopolitical circumstance is guaranteed to prevent the violence. In places with low rates of predatory male behavior, maybe the abortion/infanticide is not so necessary. In places where predatory male behavior is an epidemic (as it is here, in the United States), it is a necessity.
Castration is another tool to curtail men's predatory behavior. Some repeat rapists have even castrated themselves to stop raping, testament to what shit the "justice" system is at stopping violence. Altering the nutrition of juvenile males prevents them from developing the advantage in strength and body size they so often use against us as they mature. Isolation from other males prevents the development of gangs (be they street gangs, trafficking networks, or political bodies), and the sharing of ideas, strategies, and plans for violence and destruction.
Does it sound awful? It is. Wouldn't it be great if males would just stop being so violent? Yes, but they won't. Thousands of years of human history have proven this. Only a fool would believe that they will stop on their own at this point. For every one who is not violent, another is, and there is no way to tell them apart until after they strike. Why wait around for it? To be "fair" to the harmless men?
Is it "fair" that potential victims have to live in fear; is that an acceptable price for this "fairness"? Is it fair to the actual victims, whose victimization could have been prevented for the price of a bit of social engineering and some abortions? I say that when males as a group get their rates of violence down to women's rates, then I'll care about being "fair" to them. When a large enough portion of a group cannot be trusted, fairness goes out the window. Safety of those far less likely to offend is more important.
And what about you? Whose interests do you value? Whose interests do you serve with your behavior, whose interests do you promote with your words, whose interests form the foundation of your sociopolitical commitments? Is it the interests of the vulnerable and the trustworthy?
Feminism based on asking or telling men to behave is feminism that doesn't work.
