"Women against feminism" WTF?!!

Thanks.

I'm not great at theory. I just think it has a practical use, that phrase.

LRD - Interesting point about not "othering" rapists as different to non-rapists. It's certainly the case that the rape-myth culture perpetuates this and anything that can bring that into sharp focus is a Good Thing.

My first reaction to the All-men-are-rapists thing, was that it was a precursor or postcursor (is that a word?) to the All-PIV-is-rape concept. So more feminist theory, rather than applied feminism. Can't see why it can't be used in both tho'.

SirC - maybe you can, but I can't. I think it's helpful.

And I'm not 'resorting to the claim'.

You may not find any of this helpful. That's fine. But some women do. And most men I know do not find it remotely offensive.

Anyway, tell me - how exactly would you reassure a traumatised woman who couldn't believe she'd been raped because the rapist was 'such a nice guy'? How could you explain to her she couldn't have known, when she's telling you she's sure all rapists are evil and it can't be her bloke because he seems nice?

I would start by telling her she is allowed to be bloody upset. I would not start by waving my finger in her face and insisting she moderate her language so as not to upset any men who might be saddened by the phrase 'all men are potential rapists'.

Guess that's a difference between us, eh?

One more thing - muslim is not a racial definition. I can be white and a muslim. So accusing Islamic faith of being a cause of terrorism is not a racist statement.

Bugger - just seen the time. Am at work and getting nothing done . Heading off now

Saying 'every man' doesn't ignore all the non-male rapists, because there aren't any (this is going on the legal definition which states that rape involves a penis).

There are men who have no penis, through accident or disease. There are men incapable of an erection through medical condition. So in fact the comparison with 'all muslims are potential terrorists seems valid. In the way that a woman might cross the road to avoid a man, I might avoid flights likely to carry a lot of muslims. Just reducing the risk, as I cannot know their intentions. Even though I know that statistically most of them wouldn't blow the plane up.

Lastly, the definition of rape as penetration by a penis is true in the UK, but not in other countries - e.g. Germany. So rape by someone other than a male with a functioning penis is possible in some places.

LRD - I think that we can explain that without resorting to the 'all men are potential rapists' claim.

So because someone decides that they are a woman, they feel like a woman, but they want to keep their genitals as those of a man, I should be forced to share a women's changing room with them, let them give me a medical examination I would usually only be comfortable with a female Dr doing, share a prison cell with them, share a room in a hostel or shelter with them?

Giving transwomen the right to access the services they need is right, and fair and of course I support that. But that doesn't mean that they should be able to access services that women need to access in a purely female space.

Agree Just - but the point I was making is none of the examples I used (and the examples others have given) is ever used - person, man, woman, Muslim, etc because it's utterly ridiculous, and yet someone with a penis can be called a 'potential rapist' simply because they have a penis. Whose agenda does that suit?

All men are potential rapists. Just as all human beings are potential murderers.

Sorry to drop in to the middle of the conversation.

In my view, the phrase 'all men are potential rapists' is useful because of the way many women experience rape. It's not designed to make women look shiftily at all men they meet - the point is, lots of women are raped by men they know. It is a very natural and human response to try to rationalize this. So you get women (and sometimes their families and friends) saying 'well, Nigel is my husband and I love him, he couldn't do a thing like that ... I must have misunderstood'. Or 'he must have got carried away'. Or 'maybe you sent the wrong signals?'

The point of the phrase it to remind us all that there is nothing obviously evil or terrifying or 'marked out' about a man who is a rapist. We expect there to be. Often, people will talk about how rape is an evil act, and only someone awful could carry it out. The problem with that, is that it suggests rapists are all quite different from the men we meet every day, and we'd easily see the difference.

I've heard women beating themselves up for not realizing their rapist would do such a thing. Saying 'all men are potential rapists' reminds us we can't see inside other people's heads. We can't know if this nice-seeming man is a nice man, or if he's a rapist - and that is not our fault.

No, they don't - but simply having a penis does not make you a man, and having a safe space is not the same as being denied services simply because you have a residual penis. As a woman I'm concerned that all women have equal access to services.

I'd think they were telling the truth. Unless they were including women over 50.

I agree it's true, that's the point of the example. Aren't we supposed to be fighting against this generalisation of people based on their genitals? You're basically assenting to employers discriminating against women of child bearing age!

^Saying 'every muslim is a potential terrorist' isn't a good comparison though, is it?

Every person is a potential terrorist in reality. Saying ' every muslim' is like saying 'every bald man' (or some other subset of men) is a potential rapist.^

Saying 'every muslim' is racist because it implies that muslims are most likely to be terrorists (which, on a global & historical scale, isn't accurate) and ignores all the non-muslim terrorists.

It's true even if you say every Muslim. Whether or not it's racist (and I agree it is) isn't the point, the fact it's true apparently justifies it.

But not all trnswomen go through gender reassignment surgery.

Transwomen needing space where they can be safe doesn't automatically mean that they have to use the space that is there for women.

Just no, sorry - I know it wasn't you who said that . I'm just musing on the point of the quote. I've never heard feminists (or anyone else, but this thread is about feminism) claim that all women are potential child abusers, for example, or that all men are potential murderers. The men/potential rapist claim is just as ridiculous as those 2 examples, and serves no purpose whatsoever.

I'm interested in whether this query about denying services because the woman still has a residual penis is from a legal POV, or from a feminist POV which (seems, if I've understood correctly) to say that trans women are, in fact, men.

So a transexual person, who looks, feels, and dresses like a woman but still has the genitals of man.. should have to access mens changing rooms?

Don't you see how that sets them up for attack?

I'd think they were telling the truth. Unless they were including women over 50

You wouldn't think they were an arse? Really? Your first reaction would be to agree that's the truth?

What does saying that 'all men are potential rapists' actually hope to achieve? It's a pointless statement.

You can flip all of that on its head - should a woman be forced to share with men simply because she hasn't completed the trans process and therefore still has a penis?

I'm not trying to offend anyone with my use of man/woman. I would refer to a transwoman/man by whatever pronoun they prefer and believe they have every right to live their life free from the threat of violence or discrimination. But I just don't think it's as black and white as 'they are women and should be allowed automatically into women only spaces'.