(TL;DR it's more important to do it and live it than worry about the label or the definition, eh.)
Um. I’m sorry if that came off as directed at you personally; I intend it to apply to myself as much as anyone. (For context: I was remembering two much earlier threads I’ve been in, one about advocacy for minorities, and another about the difficulty of measuring “mana").
I agree with your most recent point above, with the caveat that we also check members of the disadvantaged group agree with what we're saying!
Yes. I think men self-labelling as "feminist" (thereby also claiming some stake in defining what that is) is on a par with someone claiming to have "mana": while establishing that the label/quality is viewed positively by the claimant, it rather misses the point of what is being described.
Turfs are not feminists
That’s the same argument as “(cis) men can’t ever be true feminists, because of privilege and lack of lived experience”. Which is not entirely valid in all cases (it’s basically the No True Scotsman fallacy, plus it gets really circular when extended to trans individuals -- as e.g. by TERFs), but it’s also hard to argue that it doesn’t contain some truth: at the very least, it is certainly much harder to be accepted as speaking for a group when you visibly are not directly a member of it.
If you define “feminist” as “pro-equality” then, yes, by definition, TERFs who see trans women as less than cis women aren’t that, and men can be that; but “feminist” isn’t necessarily merely “pro-equality” – and to be clear, that’s not necessarily a bad thing given the amount of institutional and cultural bias to be countered in promoting women’s rights.
There are a few nominations for #metoo back on page 1;
but of course repeating it’s especially appropriate!
(and … yes, you’ve also nominated it without the hashtag, near the top of page 3.)
In context, those questions are rhetorical (assumed answer “Bloody few”), and intended as an ironic comment on the rabbit-chasing away from the theme “Violence is mostly a male problem, yet impacts mostly on women”.
In retrospect it’s easy to understand the reaction “I don’t have any solutions to the problem as stated, so let’s talk about something else instead”, but it’s also easy to understand how that can get very frustrating.
Actually, why do we keep falling down that particular rabbit-hole?
(i) It’s easier to sympathise with a victim, so that’s where our attention goes.
(ii) A surviving victim needs to recover some sense of agency, which often means seeking out something they can easily change.
(iii) The aggressor is (presumed to be) harder to change.
(iv) An aggressor is harder to identify as such than a victim (after the fact; but also before the fact, in the sense that aggressors are better at identifying potential victims than victims are at identifying a potential aggressor [and trivially, an aggressor is more likely to know in advance they’ll be an aggressor than a victim knows in advance they’ll be a victim]).
(Hence we're left with -- inaccurate, but predictive -- profiling, e.g. by gender.)
Well, yes. But again, looking at characteristics of the victim distracts from the point that the aggressor is the problem. (And it turns out we're really easily distracted by characteristics of the victim.)
And the population-level statistics – while they may help set the optimal outreach targets, campaign designs, and policies – are possibly misleading in another way, too. Drill down deep enough, and really what you’re left with is: how safe do I feel right now in this relationship with this individual? Which is a perspective that may identify danger signs regardless of category membership.
The safest relationship to be in is a gay male partnership; the most dangerous is a lesbian partnership.
But that conclusion is premature, as the measure compared (probability of reporting of domestic violence) is not equivalent to the actual risk measure (probability of incidence of domestic violence)*(average impact of incident).
It's likely there is some differential bias in reporting domestic violence by gender and/or orientation; also, it’s a safe assumption that the average impact will be higher in cases with a male aggressor!