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

They don't.

However, and it's a big however, if someone ever accused me of being racist/sexist/disablist/prejudiced, them my first response would be to think 'am I objectively being racist/sexist/disablist/prejudiced'. If the answer was yes then of course I would stop what I was doing and apologise.

Right oh.

Although maybe you're just more of an objective thinker than those over-emotional women/PoC/whatever?

They certainly did until recently patriarchy and many men still think they do.

xenophile

Why do men get to define what sexism is, or white people what racism is

They don't.

Or a man decides, for example, that 'the glass ceiling isn't ubiquitous' in spite of women's experience and huge amounts of evidence to the contrary. For example, even in teaching where women outnumber men quite significantly on the whole, the majority of leadership positions are still held by men. Same in nursing.

I'm not aware of your personal experiences spaghetti, but that is categorically not what I have just described.

Right, because in my experience, in the context of sexism, 'objectively' usually means a man decides what he did wasn't sexist regardless of how women feel.

Again, spot on.

Why do men get to define what sexism is? Or white people to define what racism is? It's gaslighting.

Right, because in my experience, in the context of sexism, 'objectively' usually means a man decides what he did wasn't sexist regardless of how women feel.

Spaghetti

In the standard way. So not swayed by personal opinion, appearing the same to everybody etc. Essentially the dictionary definition.

How do you define 'objectively' patriarchy?

Spaghetti

I think you are conflating a number of issues in your previous post and strawmanning all over the place, but ok, I kind of agree that if someone's go-to response, regardless of circumstance, was to play the NAMALT/NAWPALT card then they are probably not open minded enough to be actually thinking about what is being said.

However, and it's a big however, if someone ever accused me of being racist/sexist/disablist/prejudiced, them my first response would be to think 'am I objectively being racist/sexist/disablist/prejudiced'. If the answer was yes then of course I would stop what I was doing and apologise.

But if the answer was no I'm not, then I'd tell them to go f**k themself.

Spaghetti

Such tosh

Yes, that does clear it up - thank you. Obviously, it was the first of the two statements that was unhelpful and misleading - nobody in the audience wants to hear that sort of thing - it butters no parsnips.

As to your statement - I do feel there are things I should do (though I struggle to find practical things, beyond listening), I'm so glad one of the brothers here didn't say that. I was going to mention it earlier, but I though I'd leave it initially

I should add that if I did something and a person sincerely said 'that makes you seem racist,' I would have a serious think about why that was and apologise if necessary because I understand that even if I am not a racist, I can still unintentionally perpetuate racist systems and stereotypes. It takes maturity, character and guts to say 'fuck that was a dickhead move, I'm really sorry.'

Wholeheartedly agree with this too. If I was ever told something I said was deeply hurtful and racist/homophobic/disablist/prejudiced I wouldn’t shout back. I’d stop and think about why that person was telling me that, and think about how what I said made them feel.

I should add that if I did something and a person sincerely said 'that makes you seem racist,' I would have a serious think about why that was and apologise if necessary because I understand that even if I am not a racist, I can still unintentionally perpetuate racist systems and stereotypes. It takes maturity, character and guts to say 'fuck that was a dickhead move, I'm really sorry.'

You know what it takes to say 'not all white people/men are like that'? A raging sense of narcissism and a self concept so incredibly fragile that in the face of other people's genuine upset your only thought us your own ego.

Well said Spaghetti I’m having this argument currently on Twitter re disablism and a black woman has told me to just suck it up because now I know how black women feel. I did not respond that “not all white people are like that” I responded that I recognise my white privilege and challenge racism directly wherever I see it.

Because if we all sat back and used whataboutery and “but they’re not all like that” nothing would ever change.

Recognising what is wrong, and understanding that it is apologists and defenders who cause a significant amount of damage is key.

Good clear explanation there Spaghetti even the hardest of thinkers should get that.

And just for the record, I agree that NAMALTing on yet another thread about MVAWG not only makes you a bit of a self centred wankstain, but further, that it's gaslighting.

I am white, I try really hard not to be a racist, but, if a PoC tells me that something I've said is racist or hurtful to them, then my first port of call isn't to reply "well, I deplore all violence to PoC, but NAWPALT" because it's a shitty thing to do.

No, sawdust, let me explain it again for you. It's not complicated but you seem to need some help. What I was saying was that if a group of people tell you about circumstances that impact negatively on their lives, such as violence, sexism and racism, responding that not all people do those things makes you a raging dickhead, because guess what? It's not about you or whether you do it or not. Therefore even though I'm not racist, if someone tells me about racism Idon't respond with 'not all white people are like that' because I'm not a massive self centred wankstain who's only concerned with making myself feel better. Get it?

Also because I'm not a wankstain, I understand that if people do tell me about racism they aren't trying to make me feel guilty because again, it isn't about me and again I get that because I am not a massively self centred dick.

My point being that when men hear about male violence against women and their first response isn't empathy, anger, understanding of any sort of feeling, rather it's an immediate defence iftheir own feelings with 'not all men are like that' that just marks them out as utter arsewipes who are entirely self serving.

That a bit clearer now?

Spaghetti

Ok, lets explore it a little further. You wrote this morning that you didn't feel guilty for racism, by which I take you to mean that (a) you are not yourself a racist and (b) furthermore, you don't hold yourself accountable for the racism of others. (Although, you could alternatively be saying 'I am a racist and proud of it - but this seems unlikely from reading the rest of your posting.)

Then in the same paragraph, you deny that you would say 'not all white people are like that'....notwithstanding you just did say that about yourself. Then confusingly, having implied you weren't a racist, you seem to suggest that others trying to make you feel guilty for it, was something you wouldn't seek to challenge.

ho hum, funny old world eh ?

@sawdustformypony Why not both "I don't feel guilty" AND "I don't say NAWPALT"? I don't see a conflict here.

I'm not sure what you mean sawdust?

I don't feel guilt for racism

or

I don't say 'not all white people are like that' or 'I'm not racist so stop bugging me with this as you're trying to make me feel guilty.'

So which one is it, then ?

Just saying 'hierarchies are the problem, let's get rid of them' completely denies something absolutely fundamental to human nature and societal development.

Not all human societies are or have been hierarchical in that way though - the onset of agriculture seems to have been the trigger for an awful lot of it. Surplus—> leisure—> classes. You also see differences in hunter gatherer societies with periodic surplus - they tend to be community focused/sharing bounty type rather than settled storage/accumulation type.
When you look at non agricultural societies and pre agricultural societies you see a different dynamic.

Humans are successful partly because of our biology (we are a mid sized mammal, omnivores, endurance physiology, opposable thumbs and big brains) and partly because of what that biology allows us to DO - which is thrive and adapt in very diverse niches. We do OK in the high arctic, we’ve managed in the danakil depression and everywhere in between.

There’s no set ‘right way’ for a human society to operate to the exclusion of all other methods. Agricultural-priest class-hierarchy is one model, and one that’s worked for dense populations. But other models are available. If you were going to argue it, how we live now is not how we’ve lived for most of our evolutionary history.

Good article in tones today by Janice (thanks to reluctantC and Brashbandicoot!)

<a class="break-all" href="http://go.mumsnet.com/?xs=1&id=470X1554755&url=www.thetimes.co.uk/article/self-hating-incel-men-are-the-new-jihadis-5rz37h9s9?shareToken=2c241c337afb011e18d1d2cebf082548" target="_blank">http://go.mumsnet.com/?xs=1&id=470X1554755&url=www.thetimes.co.uk/article/self-hating-incel-men-are-the-new-jihadis-5rz37h9s9?shareToken=2c241c337afb011e18d1d2cebf082548

I noticed the slimy 'all' patriarchy but tbh I'm glad to see you express some humanity so I'll let it slide. Maybe your happiness at slow progress won't be quite so complete now eh?

I find it very interesting that men often sound off key in this kind of discussion. Maybe it's because they assume their thoughts and analysis are valuable? Maybe it's because they don't hear or understand women's concerns? I would try harder to pinpoint it, but to be honest I don't want to put the effort in. I just recognise the tone and think: no, men just don't get it. And worse, they don't even try. Maybe because they'd rather hear the sound of their own voices than listen to women? I don't know. But I wish they'd get out of the way.

Spaghetti

I'm deeply unhappy about all violence against women.