Boys will respect women under Labour ARticle in TImes

Quite so. Focusing on the right issues but applying the wrong solutions. So typical, so frustrating. Labour's heart is often in the right place, but...

Borrowing Occam's Razor, I think it's much more likely that she's referring to the old, persistent question of men participating in (and more critically at the moment, attempting to lead or define or speak on behalf of) feminism. The role of men in the movement(s) is not really much of an everyday issue or question for most feminists, but very often comes up from people curious or learning about feminism and/or wanting to criticise it without fully understanding it.

In radical feminist circles, it goes without saying that men cannot be feminists, although they can certainly be "allies", understand feminist analysis, study feminist theory, actively support some feminist goals, join with feminist groups in common cause.

Among Marxist, materialist, socialist feminists - I'd assume KIS falls somewhere in this group if she wanted to join UK Labour - there's more of a split with some feeling that the basic issue is class and all people should work together to overthrow the system and deal with sexism "after", and others feeling that class is largely overdetermined by other factors and sex is a critical one and so many feminists should focus on the larger issues through that particular lens.

Liberal feminists tend to see the class of men as a benchmark of where women should aspire to be, and can be all over the map on inclusion of men in feminism. What no feminist will do, though, is centre men in feminism at the expense of women in a political-economic-social-cultural system that structurally and systemically marginalises and exploits women and girls on the basis of sex. This has nothing to do with "hating" individual men or men as a class, it's just logic.

I'm not very familiar with KIS apart from knowing that some of her work is used in the HoC, so thanks for linking to her site. I'm actually surprised there's so much on there catering to men and male views (and/or perhaps to women who support her but feel the need to justify her work and views to individual men in their lives). Likely, also, she's received a lot of blowback on why she's centering women, so perhaps she's chosen to put it out there in writing rather than constantly explaining herself. She seems to have a pretty positive view of individual men and men as a class; why else would she take the time and space to write and showcase so much addressed TO men, almost all of it constructive?

Probably she IS a good fit for UK Labour - while she might not pass the (counterproductive at the moment) vetting process to become a Labour candidate, they'd likely do very well to listen critically to what she's saying.

God, its never ending isn't it? Why are some people so predictable.

This time it's two rules ticked.

9. Men always know the “real reasons” for everything women do and say.
10. The worst thing about male violence is that it makes men look bad.

Since Karen explictly says "I’m quite happy to talk with you, work in partnership with or alongside you, even count a select bunch of you amongst my friends", you can rest assured that she doesn't hate all men. Although I'm sure, in your case, she'd be happy to make an exception if you ask nicely.

I do find websites like "Counting Dead Women" interesting

Not the word that jumps to my mind...

Folks - we've been Mansplained. What a surprise

I'm just going to leave it to you to look up the difference between "explicit" and "implicit". Never a mansplaner be, me.

I know. But you are failing to come up with receipts. I didn't know you were/are a man so I'll just leave an eyeroll and tell you not to be so sensitive. She doesn't hate men. She hates the ones who commit DV and I have no doubt she, as i do, think apologists for those are beneath contempt.

It's plain that Brefugee is asking you which words, explicitly, you think demonstrate hate for all men. It's plain that you think it's implicit in what KIS has written, as you are unable to provide an explicit example.

Ok... as you will readily appreciate, much of poor KIS's writing is directed against those wretched "men" - so a proper response will take some time to draft up. But I'm up for the challenge, but no holding your breath now.

sawdustformypony

It's plain that Brefugee is asking you which words, explicitly, you think demonstrate hate for all men. It's plain that you think it's implicit in what KIS has written, as you are unable to provide an explicit example.

I'm just going to leave it to you to look up the difference between "explicit" and "implicit".

Y'know what else is a "commonly used device"? Twisting women's words when those women say things that are both true and inconvenient. The Labour Party MO then, eg in respect of Duffield and LRM.

Most of the boys I know do seem to respect women. (I’m a mum of girls, but friends children, and friends of daughters seem fine.)

Bit rude to point the finger at boys and young men. Painting them as the problem is real deflection. Labour needs to get its own house in order. Proper gender definitions, please. Real leadership opportunities in the party for women please. Allowing women to speak, etc.

There have been similar ideas before, but what has happened in recent years is for the misogynistic males to self-identify as female and then be given free-reign to spout their abuse (and in many cases given a platform to do so).

I'm just going to leave it to you to look up the difference between "explicit" and "implicit". Never a mansplaner be, me.

Also re: the #NAMALT. Your demand is repulsed. I do find websites like "Counting Dead Women" interesting - mainly that the level of hatred that KIS must generate within herself must be exhausting. Poor thing, really when you think about it - corresive acid in a bottle and all that.

yes, I've read that. So which part, explicitly, does she say that she holds all men in contempt?

If you would just shove the #NAMALT where the sun doesn't shine and actually pay attention you might just learn something interesting.

It's a commonly used device used in writing and speeches. For example, I have sat in enough Court rooms and listened to judgements handed down. If the judge starts off the judgement praising one of the parties, you will often find after a few sentences there is a 'but' and then the Judges gives their reasons for finding for the other party.

Have I read the rest ? - yes, your right, she's very fond of "men" /s

Hmm.

Yes, I’m one of those feminists who doesn’t want men in feminism, the type who doesn’t think men can be feminists. I’m quite happy to talk with you, work in partnership with or alongside you, even count a select bunch of you amongst my friends, but call you feminists: “Nah.”

That certainly doesn't suggest that she hates all men. Have you read the rest of it?

She doesn't come out explicility and say she hates men. That would be too unacceptble for many. But it is implicit in what she writes. If you want an examples then try here. Doesn't this read like some one very happy to conflicate the crimes of some men with the 'class' of all men.

sawdustformypony · Today 12:21

It's clear to me that she holds all men in contempt.

Have you got any examples of things she's said, which has led you to that conclusion?

receipts or push off with that bollocks.
Maybe you imagine she hates men because you lack the wit to understand what she is actually saying? Maybe you don't actually listen/read what she says and rely on 2nd hand accounts of what she says/writes?

If you think that counting dead women is something that might make a woman hate men, don't you think it would be better to do something about the fact that 2 women a week are killed by men? often one they know very well. Or is it better to misunderstand and snipe from the sidelines?

@Ramblingnamechanger you just click on the top right button with the half a square and upwards arrow. It allows you to copy the link then you can paste it. I just screenshot the comments.

Where does she say she hates all men?

I mean, I wouldn't blame her, but where does she say it?

This is very like the menopause stuff they came out with.

Yes there's an issue for some women and boys that do need tackling.

For menopausal women instead of focusing on improving training for HCP and access to services for women affected badly by menopause we'll place an additional burden on employers assume it's all women of this age and ignore concerns it may mean discrimination against women fairly common in childbearing years will continue longer now because of menopause concerns.

For boys - we'll assume it all boys that are the issue - not look at funding or expanding fund DV programs that help victims and their children break cycles, not look at sentencing or issues with courts and prosecutions or how police forces use or don't the powers they already have - we won't look at a social media influences or wider media or how they could be curbed or regulated no we'll insist schools deal with it while completely ignoring the huge issues and pressure school are crumbling under and fact the predominately female workforce is facing and trying to cope with disrespectful and sometime violent boys at the moment anyway.

It was on a previously thread described as back of the cab policy making.

It ignores Labour policy issues and tries to imply they care and are doing something with no concern their solutions are problematic.

None of this is me saying Torys have the solutions either.

It's clear to me that she holds all men in contempt. I hold only the perpetrators in contempt.

utter piffle.

It is clear that she holds some men - perpetrators of VAWG - in utter contempt.
Don't you?

Ah yes, the 12th Rule of Misogyny:

“Women’s ability to recognize male behavior patterns is misandry”

A few days ago Starmer suspended Diane Abbott, an MP of 35 years, for her public comments regarding Tomiwa Owolade's Guardian article on the results of the EVENS survey on racial, ethnic, and religious discrimination in the UK. Starmer said: “In my view what she said was to be condemned, it was antisemitic. Diane Abbott has suffered a lot of racial abuse over many, many years … that doesn’t take away from the fact that I condemn the words she used..."

Will he apply equivalent standards to MPs, councillors, and Labour party activists who use misogynistic words - often outright slurs and dogwhistles - to reinforce and advocate for systemic prejudice, discrimination, and (in some cases) violence against women? When and if he (or a subsequent Labour leader) does, I might begin to see the Labour Party as a force capable of combating, opposing, and reducing migsogyny and misogynistic abuse and sex-based violence. But they can't do that effectively at the same time that they are institutionally ignoring and/or promoting it.