Ghandi, Aung San Su Kiy and other arseholes

Unhinged, racist, Hitler supporting, egotistical, petty, small-minded, obsessive, opinionated, etc.

Goodness me, that's quite a litany for women who just wanted to have a discussion on MN about something.

I conclude that some posters think some men are above criticism from women. And they resort to personal attack in order to shut down the discussion. Shame.

I'm glad at least MrGin is finding it entertaining though.

Trust the teachings, not the teacher.

That is, if you believe in the teachings!

I certainly don't think that acknowledging someone's achievements in, say, bringing about Indian independence even if they were neutral or negative in their contribution to women's liberation, is a case of "Women - back of the queue." That would only be the case if women were nothing but women if they didn't also have an ethnic identity or a class identity or whatever else. The only grounds for giving unique salience to women's gender identity in these sorts of contexts would be if gender was the fundamental and single explanatory category on the basis of which history and society could be understood so that class and racial oppression, and all of our cultural achievements, were cabable of being explained reductively in terms of gender.

Traditional Marxism makes that kind of one-term explanation of history and society in terms of property relations: everything is to be understood in terms of ownership/non-ownership of the means of production. Vast explanatory edifices were built to refine that claim. I suppose you would need something similarly elaborate to even try to substantiate a similar claim about gender.

What about Marie Curies husband Pierre Curie?

He must have been a closet feminist by default?

Wat Tyler.
Am not sure where he stood on the radfem/ liberal debate though...

Me too Oaty. I am also v fond of JSM. He was one of the first to identify the personal as the political. He used his privilege for good and that is super admirable.

There have been lots of different sorts of interesting points on this thread. Kritiq's contribution was interesting and productive. I don't really think the thread was racist in mentioning three people of colour: the original discussion of Gandhi framed the discussion in terms of people who have lead movements against racist and imperialist oppression and so white examples were less likely to come up. But I really enjoyed Kritiq's broadening of the discussion.

Of course there are huge numbers of white men who have been brilliant contributors in other fields but who were culpable in their attitude to and treatment of women, and it is constantly heartbreaking as a feminist to admire people (in whatever field constitutes your own endeavour in life) who you know would harbour negative and diminishing attitudes to you as a woman. We all have intersecting identities -- woman and black; women and a scientist; woman and a lover of great literature/cinema/music and, historically, there are very few men indeed that we can admire unambivalently. Still, people are complex and are assessments of the have also to be complex.

One of the Dead White Males I feel fondest of is John Stuart Mill, genuinely a feminist (though I'm sure not perfect as a feminist, but who is?). He ploughed a lonely furrow amongst men of his time and amongst liberals. I feel kind of grateful towards him just for throwing into the arena of male discussion that minimum of respect which women deserve.

If you're having. A pop at me, I'm making a valid point. I'm not trying to derail the thread.

You are being silly now suggesting that feminists put Hitler above Gandhi. Fgs thats pretty offensive. Hitler hasn't been up for discussion cos he's an all round tosser and were discussing people we otherwise admire.

Can you stop taking a pop at feminists and just discuss the issue at hand. The antagonism is unnecessary and no one can post on FWR without expecting to run into some.

My guess, I said guess, is that white men, due to their privileged position have been great scientists, explorers, etc, because they've had the education/money whilst the great movements have been led by people of the non dominant group.

As I type one man comes to mind: Karl Marx. As I've been accused of marxist tendencies myself (!!) on another thread obviously I must identify with his politics (he even addressed women's issues) but i wouldn't have wanted to be his wife or any of his numerous mistresses.

Now purlease can we make this thread into a peaceful happy one cos I'm feeling a bit emotional after Murray's loss?

( I don't think I'll read PARP again without a little naughty smile :) )

Circa 1823, the Anti-Slavery Society ? Joseph Sturge, Thomas Clarkson, William Wilberforce, Henry Brougham, Thomas Fowell Buxton, Elizabeth Heyrick, Mary Lloyd, Jane Smeal, Elizabeth Pease and Anne Knight.

Might they collectively offer an example of white people with an heroic and admirable cause, working towards emancipation ?

I think the Hitler example is intersesting. If one is to define someone by weighting their behaviour directly to ones political or world view, then it'd be a bit of a conflict for militant vegitarians...

what'

But hitler could not get it up, Gandhi controlled and did not let it go up. Therefore Gandhi wins!

Being contentious, Hitler 1.0 got Germany out of appalling recession. Sadly, Hitler 2.0 started a major war and a pogrom, both traditional things any ambitious Euro-dictator had to do.....

But he didn't sleep with pre-teen naked girls at least, so by some people's Feminist standards he's a decent egg :o

What about Stalin/Lenin?

Communism/Marxism helps the feminist cause... Everyone is equal?!

Maybe we can look at the good things Stalin and Lenin did? Millions followed them?!

Eclectic

"I think there are white men who have done admirable things on a level with Gandhi and assk, we just aren't told about them all the time."

No, I dont think there are any at levels of Gandhi, MLK, Dalai Lama and Mandela at all and that is why we are not told about them.

Another thought is, should (privileged) people like FW DeKlerk be more praised because they did not need to stand up to oppression and they did? (I'll have to think this one through myself)

I dont think this thread had anything to do with 'colour'. I do however think that some comments on here re. womens rights in India etc were patronising.

Lets move on from race/colour etc as that is not the intention of this thread.

Now, lets look at a current situation that is happening now.

David Cameron is our democratically selected leader. What has he done for womens rights in the UK? What has he done for Human rights in Tibet? What about womens rights in SA?! What about womens rights in the UK? Why are there so few female board members? Why are so many women struggling to feed their Children in the west? etc

He is in a very good position to make a change. This is the question humanist and feminists should be discussing. It is relevant for now.

Tim Berners Lee.

The Web was probably the biggest blow against oppression in the 20th centrury. Arguably the Twitter team have made the biggest difference in the 21st so far.

Your even, phone spell check.

I see you're point Wickety. I think there are white men who have done admirable things on a level with Gandhi and assk, we just aren't told about them all the time. I think Einstein, Darwin and fleming have changed the world undeniably. Also, I know no one means to offend... But I don't think "of colour" is a good terminology. I prefer non white, if that's what you mean. Or black or Asian etc.

I am new to mumsnet. Have only been posting for a month or so. So maybe I do not understand feminism. I also work in a VERY male majority environment. Note I have not used the term dominated as I in my workplace have equal voice to my colleagues. So I fail to understand what this is all about. This undertones concept that one is a twat even when one fights all this evil from the world unless he says something nice about females and singles them out as a cause.
Please don't start telling me off for this view!!

You can't put Jews in Asian bracket... What about Greeks, Spanish, italian, French... Hell, what about every white male or female who ever contributes anything to civilisation? I seriously have problems with 'white male' being the definition of evil in feminism.... I have a problem with any racial and gender stereotypes... But hey, that's just me... And i call myself a feminist...:)

Also, people are not ignoring you but still trying to come up with an answer. How about Shakelton? Sorry for spelling. iPhone won't let me spell. Great leader. What did he do for females? Henry the 8th?!

Something that is often forgotten is the Nobel Peace Prize 1993 was awarded jointly to Nelson Mandela and Frederik Willem de Klerk. It often takes 2 to tango.

wickety I agree with you re. The white male theory (if we select to put Jews (Israelis? ) into the 'Asian' bracket. ). But this thread is not meant to be patronising to no-whites is it?!