Want to talk

regrouted my understanding of patriarchy is that it is at root an economic system.

No, identity politics is the claim that one's self-professed, internally felt identity trumps all other considerations.

ID politics is a classification of people into sociocultural groups.

"No, but they've become the same thing."

Good Lord, have they? You must know some very ignorant people!

How else do you understand patriarchy other than men as a class oppressing women as a class? Individual and anecdotal relationships like the loving and supportive one I have with my DP doesn't negate systematic female disadvantage and oppression.

And class analysis and identity politics are not the same thing.

No, but they've become the same thing.

Can I throw another question out there: what is power? We talk endlessly about power and how some people have got so much more of it than others. But what is it really? Is it having more money? Is it having a position of superiority in the workplace? Is it a feeling of being powerful independent of how much money or social status you have? Is it having power over others or yourself? Is it the power to good, or do evil? What sort of power do you want?

And is the goal to turn the tables by taking power away from the powerful group and giving it to the non powerful group? Or is it to get rid of power altogether so we're all equal? But in the later instance, none of us would have power - because power only makes sense when defined against people who don't have power. If we're all equal then none of us have power.

And class analysis and identity politics are not the same thing.

Men do have more power as a class than women do. And within each subdivision-however you choose to divide it up - men have more power than the women. So while educated middle class women may have more power than uneducated working class men, they have less power than educated middle class men.

Uh, identity politics and class analysis are not the same thing. In fact, arguably they are the opposite of one another.

So, on average white middle class university educated men will earn more than white middle class university educated women. The existence of one university-educated formerly middle class man now living in a cardboard box under a railway arch, or the existence of a high-flying woman CEO in the top 1% of earners does not make that statement about averages untrue.

Ok, fair point. If you're identifying 'white, middle class, university educated men' as a class (conflating maleness, access to higher education and socioeconomic background) then yes, on average, that class does have more of what you could call power in certain contexts like politics, tech and finance. However, if you're identifying men (or anyone else) as a class independent of socioeconomic background and education etc then you run into problems. In short, the more intersectional descriptors you use to refine your class, the more sense it makes as a category within a system of power.

The problem is, that's not what identity politics is about. Often, the 'educated' and 'middle-class' conditions are absent in that kind of analysis and you're left with 'men as a class have power'. Which as a statement is useless and divisive.

ECHO ECHo ECho Echo echoooooooooo

more men than women are unemployed. "Why is this feminism's problem?" you say.

Ah interesting you bring this up. In feminist Sweden, where OP is from, the unemployment rates for men and women are 8% and 7% respectively. Not a massive difference. Thanks, feminism!

A teenage boy in Sweden asking feminists on mumsnet to explain feminism is not going to get the education he says he wants.

Explaining 150 years of feminism to a boy who has little to no clue is a ridiculous ask.

The topic is too big, too complicated and has too much nuance. Hence suggestions of reading lists etc.

It also gets very tiresome. Because it happens all the time.

If I wanted to find out about something, I would read about it. I wouldn't go and ask proponents of it to explain it to me in a heartbeat. It's lazy. And it doesn't say much for their motivation.

And it always ends predictably. They don't want an explanation, they want justification for their current bias.

I thought that, too Quentin.

It's only because you're part of the echo chamber too though

Back to the OP - I was a bit about engaging as it just seems to feed the trolling, but in this instance it's been a veritable mistressful (for want of a better word) lesson in how to deal with such people: politely expose their arguments for the inadquate piffle they are until they lose their temper and show their true colours (as abusive woman haters).

" What I have a problem with is the way these kind of discussions promote the notion that men as a class oppress women as a class. I'm saying I disagree with that. Can that disagreement be accommodated here or not?"

I don't know. Tell me why you have a problem with it and we can have a conversation.

I thought that, too Quentin.

Also, user, on a feminist board, feminists generally find talking about feminist issues, or general issues from a feminist perspective interesting. Generally, we find debating the legitimacy of feminism as a concept less interesting, because that is what the rest of the internet is for. For all their brevity, your posts definitely seem to fall into the the latter category.

What class analysis is not: the claim that all members of a given class have more power/influence/money than all people outwith that class.

What it is about (grossly oversimplified): considered as a whole, on average members of class A will have more power than class B.

So, on average white middle class university educated men will earn more than white middle class university educated women. The existence of one university-educated formerly middle class man now living in a cardboard box under a railway arch, or the existence of a high-flying woman CEO in the top 1% of earners does not make that statement about averages untrue.

While white middle class women may earn more on average than black working class men, the latter will on average earn more than black working class women. Again, a statement about averages.

90% of incarcerated violent offenders and 98% of incarcerated sex offenders are male. While clearly not all men are violent, men are as a class (i.e on average, thought of as an aggregate) more violent than women.

You can't turn round and say "class analysis means [something it clearly doesn't] therefore class analysis is rubbish." That takes you into Humpty Dumpty territory.

I know a bit about class analysis Quentin and I don't really like it. Marx had a lot of good things to say but his class politics were crude, reductive and vulgar. Imo.

Well, that didn't come across from your post. Why don't you start a thread discussing what you want to discuss? Then it won't get tangled up with this silly thread.

Haven't you posted before user? Your "socialism is more relevant than feminism" stance seems.......familiar.
But to suggest that all men have power is wrong. Because they don't.
No one suggested that. Go and read up on class analysis.

Pooch I'm not rejecting feminism. I'm disagreeing with particular tenets of a particular school of feminism.

Of course you're allowed to disagree, user. It's just that on a feminist board, you can't honestly be surprised if that viewpoint doesn't get much traction, can you?

You could try going on a board for eco warriers and telling them global warming doesn't exist, or on a board for discussing BME issues and telling them that White Lives Matter, but you wouldn't really expect to get far with it. It's similar here.

Oh, has the OP shown his true colours, sworn at us a lot because he thinks we're all nasty bitches and then flounced? What a surprise.

And after I'd gone to all the trouble of finding him a word of the day from the Meriam-Webster learner's dictionary, to help him with his English: disingenuous.