„why are radical feminists always talking about male violence? women can be violent too“
listen. violence will always exist because it is not (just) a gendered issue. even in a non-patriarchal society, there will be violence, because its sadly human nature to some degree. we as a society should strive to reduce violence. for that, we need to figure out why people become violent and how to prevent it, and how to protect potential victims, and how to intervene and stop violence that is already taking place.
in a patriarchal society, male violence is incentivised, fostered, legitimised, and even protected. female violence is not.
violence is essential for most conceptions of masculinity; the ability and will to enact violence to restore your or your familys honour, for example. that is not expected of women. the military is a male institution, meant to defend and protect; reflecting mens supposed role in the patriarchy to defend and protect (with violence if needed). women are the creators of life, meant to be nurturing, passive. being aggressive is unfeminine - its masculine. men who are not aggressive/violent enough are actually chastised by other men and sometimes even women (for example being called pussy, gay, which is demeaning in a patriarchal context). a man hitting his woman is considered right and normal still in a lot of milieus and cultures, and has been for the longest time. a man enacting violence is living up to his manliness, other men respect him for it most of the time, especially if its against women or even other men. gang violence is another good example of this: men not bound to law will resort to violence.
the patriarchy needs male violence: the constant threat of male violence keeps women in our meant role as submissive and small, and other men in a constant need to prove themselves, keeping the cycle of violence going. so women need men to protect us, from other men. and we accept and excuse mistreatment and disrespect by men.
and then there is sexual violence which men are already more predisposed to enact because they have a penis, and a penis can reach orgasm by penetration whether that be forceful or not. and then the patriarchy enforces this through phallocentrism, through a culture of treating the penis as a weapon, as superior, as a tool that can dirty and undignify others. as a means of enacting violence. this is not the case for vaginas, they are reduced to just „holes“. penetration and how its treated is a key element of the patriarchy. homophobia stems from this too: penetrating someone is treated as an act of domination, and its supposed to be men dominating women this way, which means men being penetrated are „lesser“ men or even considered feminine.
this is why we need separatist options. single sex spaces, especially when girls and women are in an intimate or vulnerable position there. to protect. this is why we talk about male violence, to uncover the roots, how it is ignored, downplayed, and even encouraged and justified, which leads to violence. female violence is sometimes not taken seriously because it is not meant to exist, it is against feminine gender roles and how women are supposed to act in the patriarchy. which means if gender was abolished - which radical feminists are striving for - this issue would be solved with it.
