Radfems and transsexuals – an outsider’s view

"I don't find them telling me how I can tackle the issue of abortion or FGM. This is all we expect of our male allies on MN. But we rarely, if ever, get it."

Why shouldn't men have an opinion on how to tackle abortion issues or FGM? If you have an interest in tackling something, then it's pretty normal to also develop ideas on how that's best achieved. Should a good male feminist just shut up and leave the women to do it all by themselves, just because he's got the wrong set of chromosomes?

'dittany gets it because she hands it out, she treats other peoples sentiments with impunity, i have no sympathy for dittany'

Really? For someone whose first post was today you seem to know an awful lot about MN.

I have agreed with the chair up to now,but your language needs to be a bit more spot on.
Offending is offending,whether stars is fragile, or not fragile in the slightest.
And the use of the word enveloping was inappropriate.

dittany gets it because she hands it out, she treats other peoples sentiments with impunity, i have no sympathy for dittany.

Stars - you're muddying stuff here - the diction used by the reporter wasn't/isn't in contention.( Lord knows there's enough sexual assault cases where standards are low). The vast vast majority of men will know that a sleeping woman can't give consent. This was never a reported defence, but that didn't stop your link thing.

AIBU ? i thought this was the hardcore section? AIBU is easy compared to here !

And why is it only dittany who gets picked up on this stuff?

bloody hell, don't venture into AIBU; your head would implode.

are you doing it on purpose now?

Tut, dittany's not very ladylike, is she...

Must... conform... to patriarchal expectations of women...

well pubes , i have, i was talking about it down the pub just the other day

or did you expect me with a placard walking up and down market street?

You're only sorry if I'm terribly offended?

Cheers...

And no, it was a sarcastic follow on to Ethel's comment. Surely you can read sarcasm?

dittany, that was in teh article linked , what is wrong with you, you inslut people regularly and use foul language , but your all too ready to play the offended card , shame on you!

No, Pan. It doesn't help.

The survivor has the right to talk about her experience how she pleases. The prosecution and the newspaper should have been talking about it for what it was; rape.

The newspaper failed to do just that.

How are survivors supposed to talk about rape if rape isn't even being described as rape?

the 'head demons' isnt a nice thing to say, but when i say one think i so often get sarcasm about something i havent said, so if they are not arguing with me , who?

i doubt stars is a so fragile to be terribly offended by anyway, but if you were stars , i'm sorry.

You know, I have no problem with men on Mumsnet. None at all.

What I object to is men lecturing us on issues we're already campaigning for, or telling us how we should feel about x, y or z. It's not on.

I have a few male allies; some call themselves "feminist allies", some call themselves "feminists". Either of those labels sits OK with me, because they all abide by it. I don't find myself having DV or rape explained to me; I don't find them telling me how I can tackle the issue of abortion or FGM. This is all we expect of our male allies on MN. But we rarely, if ever, get it.

Chairman - stop explaining it, start challenging it. That would be a useful thing to do.

that article is interesting, but i find what she says floored, yes consent does mean you have to question the victim, but i would imagine the perpertrater would be asked about conent too, as for in laws made by men sex is 'happening to women' where as actually women are active in sex, enveloping as well as being penetrated, i have no argument there except, in a rape case it's immaterial, i doubt there would be much enveloping going on, just the penitration.

No, no problems in English comprehension here. Surprised at how other-wise seemingly intelligent and literate posters forget their skills when posting. The bloke didn't use her unconsciousness as a defence, according to the article. "Men" implies 1. this particular bloke, or 2. all men - both not evidences, hence 'load of all bollocks link line. hth.

Ive had a look and wanted to post on dadsnet,but there is a lot of football and diy,not my bag.

No,I think the more men on MN the better.
esp on feminism.

Saying just fight the demons in your head was not appropriate however,said by a man or a woman.

That Kent Online article is horrendous.

The only mention of rape I can find anywhere is the blue side headline, where the victim is referred to as an 'alleged' rape victim, even though Michael Hitchin has been FOUND GUILTY of rape.

Michael Hitchin accused of having stranger sex - yes, because having sex with strangers is illegal isn't it? FFS!

Stop with the victim attitude, CM...

has your attitude alterd now you know i'm a man?

Pan, the headline itself is "Michael Hitchins Accused of Stranger Sex".

Sex isn't a crime. Rape is. He was accused of rape.

The survivor refers to being forced to have sex; the article opens saying she found herself "having sex". The article attempts to imply consent.

Crikey. Men really do fail to understand the English Language, don't they?