Nearly every mass killer is a man. Why aren’t we talking about that?

To clarify, she may be one of the 'lucky' ones who 'just' gets catcalled in her school uniform, or 'just' groped in a club, or 'just' chased down a street late at night. Or she may be one of the millions raped every year. But as things are at the moment,bin the situation you're happy with, it's going to be some form of threat, fear, violence, trauma. Because that's life for women. Not an interesting challenge of ideas, real life.

The terms 'toxic masculinity' is misandrous. You are tarring all men with the same brush which solves nothing.

To you patriarchy, this is an interesting discussion about things that you feel don't really affect you. You say you're happy with how things are going. How interested and happy will you be when your daughter becomes the target of sexual violence? And I didn't say if, I said when. Because I know a lot of women and not a single one has escaped.

Yes I find that men find women's suffering and despair an interesting challenge

Spaghetti

Why are you on a feminist thread

Because it's interesting to have my ideas challenged

Something to think about? Because you seriously think that you've given us a deep insight into feminism? Jesus the arrogance

I think the problem with the idea of the 'reasonable person' in this instance is particular to this forum.

Most women in the UK don't identify as feminist, whereas most of the women on this forum (Feminist Chat) I assume would identify as feminists.

The rub is that the reasonable person is viewed against the totality of a society. In a society like ours, it's likely that the feminist perspective would not viewed as reasonable, and wouldn't represent the view of the 'reasonable person', even if the 'reasonable person' was a woman.

I'm not saying that to be goady, it's just something to think about.

although this thread is about some men.

So if the reasonable person to talk about sexism is a woman, why are you on a feminist thread telling women about sexism?

Spaghetti

Well legally the idea of the 'reasonable person' takes on the characteristics that are relevant to the situation, for example if a doctor is on trial, and medical knowledge is key to the case, then the reasonable person in that circumstance would be judged to also be a medical doctor for the purposes of the legal fiction.

So in a situation of alleged sexism against a woman, the reasonable person would also be a woman.

When women came out against years of abuse at the hands of directors and producers, for example, there were a number of 'reasonable' men arguing in all sincerity that the 'me too' movement would endanger men's ability to hit on women and they sincerely expected there to be concern about that and genuine worry over the idea that a man asking a woman out might appear sexist/predatory. Men actually implied that women trying to get justice for life damaging sexual violence was a problem because it might stop them getting dates. That's the 'reasonable' and 'objective' world I live in patriarchy.

Testosterone is the main explanator of the prevalence of male vs female violence and not socialisation. Roid rage is real and when females take anabolic steroids they become more violent.

This has served humanity well over many many years. Since industrialisation there is much less need for brute strength. However, it still sometimes has its uses. There are also very cruel women, although clearly fewer in number.

Socialisation curbs the innate tendency and the vast majority of well educated men have zero propensity to violence. Unnecessary violence is a pathology and not the norm.

Society continues to become less violent and testosterone levels are, on average falling (for a variety of reasons). Of course the corollary is lower sperm counts and sex drive.

As a species we depend upon male sex drive and fertility (unless you really see utopia as ivf with mechanically extracted sperm). When misdirected it causes problems but societies, by creating strong laws against violence (created at least as much by men) do contain toxic masculinity.

would you say then that the Australian government's long years of inaction regarding aboriginal people's feelings about people climbing Uluru had no racist context whatsoever?

I think this thread alone, and the many many many other threads in this topic and throughout the internet illustrate that the idea that there is an 'objective' measure of sexism that women and men agree on is a nonsense. In fact the lack of agreement is one of the main problems between the sexes.

And in that situation is the 'reasonable person' male or female?

Reluctant

But that's not racism, its insensitivity to a part of someones culture.

If I went to the tomb of Napoleon in Paris and took a shit on it, it would be deeply insensitive and offensive towards French people, but it wouldn't be racist.

where I'm going with this is the people in the position of power may not know, or care about all the information.

hmm. Lets think about Uluru. Is it racist to take tourists up a great big rock in the middle of Australia?

Based on that description no.

But if you are aboriginal, then the answer is most certainly yes.

Spaghetti

Well yes to a degree.

Prejudicial treatment on the basis of sex. It might not always appear the same, but I suppose the test would be similar to the legal one, i.e would a 'reasonable person', in the same circumstances, view it as sexist.

Do you think sexism appears the same to everyone patriarchy? As in, there is a standard set of criteria to judge sexism that everyone agrees on?

It's a reasonable discussion up till now.

Yeah right.

Sawdust

Please don't drag this thread into some goady bullshit. It's a reasonable discussion up till now.

Xenophile

Nobody is 100% objective, all the time. But we can (and should) try to be.

Although you seem to be making an identical argument, only from the opposite end. Do you suppose that all women or people of colour are 100% objective when they pronounce someone racist/sexist, but the alleged perpetrator is always subjective when they say they aren't?

If anything, women/poc are far more likely to be being subjective, because they are emotionally affected.

I don't think women accept it without question, but I do think women don't pull the 'objective' bullshit because they know what it's like being on the receiving end of 'objectivity'. Once upon a time women were 'objectively' considered unsuitable for education, for example.

Patriarchy

It might be because women are socialised to be 'nice' (apparently). If someone in a class higher up in the 'disadvantage pyramid' calls them out for being racist/homophobic/etc (but not transphobic I notice), they're apt to accept it without question.