The problem with "#NotAllMen"

[TheABC]

I read this on the BBC and it beautifully sums up the doublethink problem women face in society.

*"...some people are keen to point out that it's a tiny minority of men who are attackers - using the hashtag #NotAllMen.

"The issue with the argument is that women can't win," says Daisy.

"They want women to not treat all men as potential attackers, but then we also are asked to keep ourselves safe.

"Keeping ourselves safe means that we have to see everyone as potential attackers because if we were to say, 'OK, not all men, we will treat everyone as innocent until proven guilty", that's when these things happen.

"And that's when people say, she should have been more careful.

"So it's really tough, because I think it's an attitude that's really built into society."*

Is she (and I) being unreasonable?

they just picked sentences out of context and reposted them in different threads.

And you are complaining that I mentioned the thread, which is right there for people to read to get the full context themselves if they wish, rather than "picking sentences" to c+p?

DrSbaitso
First rule on threads about women's safety, women's rights and women's sex based oppression: don't comment on the fact that some posters are on several threads on this topic determined to make it all about men and how mean/nasty/abusive/toxic the feminists are.
Even though people can read the threads, and were replying to the views outlined, it's sneaky to point out the trends because that is apparently a pile on. Obviously the range of challenges couldn't be based on what others have read.

The second rule of threads about women's sex based oppression: if a group of women are united on challenging women's sex based oppression, then they must be dismissed by talking about 'your mates' or a 'brigade' (especially if it turns out that women challenging sex based oppression have different views within that that area, because it's apparently a gotcha moment for feminists to agree on some things and not others)

Commenting across threads about a poster is not cricket. Same tactic people use on me to discredit me. Not OK.

It’s perfectly okay, and common here. Unless of course you are a troll or say things you don’t mean or take whatever position will wind people up...

@powershowerforanhour

He's really genuinely offended by women's fear.

If he had a huge big strong (like, big enough to cause death or life changing injury if it felt like it) but friendly dog and took it for a walk in the park off the lead, and a woman coming towards them looked anxiously at the dog and backed away, would he get all arsey that she was scared and bring the dog up close to her explaining how it wouldn't hurt a fly and- like the majority of dogs- had never bitten anyone? Or would he just think oh well maybe she has been bitten before, call the dog close to him or put it on the lead and give her a respectful wide berth so she can get past without having to go close to it?

Other dogs are at more risk of being bitten by dogs in the park than people are- but that doesn't make the fear some people have of dogs stupid or offensive.

This is an excellent analogy.

And this (I know, I know...) brings us back to one of the TRA issues with bathrooms etc. No, we know not all trans women want to harm women. The point is, (because they're biologically male and conform to the same statistics re male violence and it means any male could pretend to be a trans woman..) WE DON'T KNOW WHICH ONES.

I am so so sick and tired of this shit. The misogyny is just so ingrained.

@LolaSmiles

DrSbaitso First rule on threads about women's safety, women's rights and women's sex based oppression: don't comment on the fact that some posters are on several threads on this topic determined to make it all about men and how mean/nasty/abusive/toxic the feminists are. Even though people can read the threads, and were replying to the views outlined, it's sneaky to point out the trends because that is apparently a pile on. Obviously the range of challenges couldn't be based on what others have read.

The second rule of threads about women's sex based oppression: if a group of women are united on challenging women's sex based oppression, then they must be dismissed by talking about 'your mates' or a 'brigade' (especially if it turns out that women challenging sex based oppression have different views within that that area, because it's apparently a gotcha moment for feminists to agree on some things and not others)

Oh hello Lola.

Your first point is quite right, it isn't really on to post on several threads saying 'given you said this and this' posted out of context to try and stir things up.

Given you were part of the group yesterday who were congratulating others on having managed to get someone off a thread, I'd call that a bridgade. Is that different to posters calling me an NAMAlTer?

@Deathgrip

Commenting across threads about a poster is not cricket. Same tactic people use on me to discredit me. Not OK.

It’s perfectly okay, and common here. Unless of course you are a troll or say things you don’t mean or take whatever position will wind people up...

No, I stand by my words.

But the fact it's common doesn't make it right really. Posters should be able to make up their own minds without posters jumping across threads to say oh look what she said and trying to stir it up.

Ah, thank you @LolaSmiles.

I'd really like to say why I think that thread is very relevant as to why pied is currently all over the place telling us how awful we are being to men and how it affects my reading of her viewpoint, such as it is. But somehow it does sit wrongly with me to outline it all here on another thread. I wouldn't want to be accused of taking things out of context, selectively quoting or being underhanded, so I'll just say: if anyone wants to read it and draw their own conclusions...well it's right there in the open. And like I said, I didn't AS. I just saw it, clicked it, read it, posted a comment, and then saw the username. And a few things fell into place.

@DrSbaitso

Ah, thank you *@LolaSmiles*.

I'd really like to say why I think that thread is very relevant as to why pied is currently all over the place telling us how awful we are being to men and how it affects my reading of her viewpoint, such as it is. But somehow it does sit wrongly with me to outline it all here on another thread. I wouldn't want to be accused of taking things out of context, selectively quoting or being underhanded, so I'll just say: if anyone wants to read it and draw their own conclusions...well it's right there in the open. And like I said, I didn't AS. I just saw it, clicked it, read it, posted a comment, and then saw the username. And a few things fell into place.

But you are still making implications she can't defend herself from. The behaviour is wrong. Let people read the threads themselves.

Given you were part of the group yesterday who were congratulating others on having managed to get someone off a thread, I'd call that a bridgade. Is that different to posters calling me an NAMAlTer?
I didn't congratulate anyone for getting someone off a thread.That's a flat out lie.

There are lots of women who feel strongly about sex based oppression. Some (not me) were happy that others left the thread. That doesn't not constitute a brigade.

Pointing out that you are regularly trying to turn discussions on women's oppression round onto men and arguing NAMALT is not the same as the silly brigade comments you make.
One is identifying a view running through your posts.
The other is you trying to create a narrative of some big group of meanie toxic/abusive/nasty feminists so you can argue that people challenging your views makes you a victim.

@LolaSmiles

Given you were part of the group yesterday who were congratulating others on having managed to get someone off a thread, I'd call that a bridgade. Is that different to posters calling me an NAMAlTer? I didn't congratulate anyone for getting someone off a thread.That's a flat out lie.

There are lots of women who feel strongly about sex based oppression. Some (not me) were happy that others left the thread. That doesn't not constitute a brigade.

Pointing out that you are regularly trying to turn discussions on women's oppression round onto men and arguing NAMALT is not the same as the silly brigade comments you make.
One is identifying a view running through your posts.
The other is you trying to create a narrative of some big group of meanie toxic/abusive/nasty feminists so you can argue that people challenging your views makes you a victim.

Oh no, I have absolutely no issue with people challenging my views! Not at all.

If I had that problem, I don't think I'd still be here really would I? Let alone started the new thread.

I don't actually necessarily have a problem with your (collective ) views. I just don't like your behaviour. And just as you have had 'enough', so have we.

DrSbaitso.I've not seen much of that, or if I have it's been part of several threads recently where a minority of posters seem determined to argue that women are the horrible nasty people for challenging sex based oppression.

You are right though, people will read the threads and conclude for themselves.

But this is not what the thread is about, again Lola, it's not about you.

We cannot connect the three women killed a week with the view that most men don't respect women. There is no connection between those statements

Let people read the threads themselves.

Er, that's exactly what I've suggested people do. You appear to want people to do the same thing but never mention it. (And I'm being devious?) Of course pied can respond if she likes, no idea where you're getting that from. Like I said, it's all out there. I'm pretty sure she knows what she wrote at least as well as I do.

You know what, I've said everything I need to say on this and the subject matter is too important to be derailed any further.

There is nothing wrong with referring to other posts/threads when the topic is the same or similar.

You are trying to make something out of nothing Rooty and distract from the main point. I have noticed you do this on other threads particularly ones discussing women/womens rights/womens oppression.

I think it's reductive to reduce a culture of misogyny simply to acts of violence. Acts of violence do not occur in a vacuum. There is a whole spectrum of attitudes which lead to it and we have to place it on a continuum. It starts with the 'harmless' jokes about periods and emotional and irrational women, the 'locker room banter' which reduces women to a series of body parts, the watching of porn which is designed to degrade and dehumanise female bodies. It progresses to catcalls, to leering, to inappropriate touching, all based on the initial premise that men are entitled to women's attention and bodies and time. It manifests in intimate relationships in the unwillingness to engage in caring for children, the resentment at shared housework and mental load on the 'minor' end of the spectrum, to financial abuse and coercive control on the other, all based on attitudes of where a woman's place is and what punishment can be administered if she strays from it. For a (thankfully) small minority, this can then manifest in acts of physical violence - but why do we ignore the underlying attitudes which have led to it? And why do we absolve the men who participate at the lesser end of the spectrum, in the laughing at the misogynist jokes, which validates the men who will go on to emotionally and physically abuse women? Men who are not physically violent are afraid of men who aren't - rightly so. But that doesn't mean they didn't have opportunities long before it reached the point of physical violence. Men exist in this misogynistic culture which produces male violence. Unless they actively challenge the culture which produces these attitudes, they are still very much part of the problem.

Exactly this. Not all men kidnap and murder women, but many, even most engage in sexist behaviour or overlook it when they see it, therefore accepting it as the norm. It's about men asserting their power over us. We need to change this.

@LastRoloIsMine

There is nothing wrong with referring to other posts/threads when the topic is the same or similar.

You are trying to make something out of nothing Rooty and distract from the main point. I have noticed you do this on other threads particularly ones discussing women/womens rights/womens oppression.

No, I did this on other thread where Lola did exactly the same tactic, and I've called Dr out for the same wrong behaviour.

I stand by it, so noticing it is all very well and good, but I don't deny it. It's unacceptable.

We cannot connect the three women killed a week with the view that most men don't respect women. There is no connection between those statements
Except countless posters across several threads have repeatedly explained to you that there is a connection.

@LolaSmiles

We cannot connect the three women killed a week with the view that most men don't respect women. There is no connection between those statements Except countless posters across several threads have repeatedly explained to you that there is a connection.

In their opinion. I dont agree

Is that OK?

Its not a tactic fgs.

In their opinion. I dont agree
Is that OK?
Of course it is.
Just don't try to play the victim when your attitude to women's oppression across several threads is noticed.

But it is.

If I wasn't a MN regular and didn't recognise usernames, read a point and saw that that poster had been discredited, which is what Dr did, it influences me.

Lola yesterday posted the same sentence of mine out of context across three threads no fewer than four times, to stir up discussion on it, with no context.

That is not on.

But despite your attempts to claim I'm somehow trying to distract from the issue at hand, which is a similar claim made by Lola and the like mainly because they constantly accuse us of trying to shut them up when in actual fact we just don't agree with them, I don't actually want to derail.

So you think it's fine, I don't, can we move on?

@LolaSmiles

In their opinion. I dont agree Is that OK? Of course it is. Just don't try to play the victim when your attitude to women's oppression across several threads is noticed.

Oh I'm not playing the victim. I stand by my attitude. Absolutely. I have never changed my stance that I think the behaviour of some of the feminists on this thread is appalling when it comes to sex based views. I make no secret of that.

No it isn't Rooty

Thats my opinion you dont have to agree. If you feel posters are not behaving in the "spirit" of mn then report them.

After 56 years on this earth, I'm at the stage where I actually believe is IS all men. No, I absolutely don't mean they are all violent or rapists. Yes, I do mean microaggression, gender bias in varying degrees, sexualisation of women (also varying degrees).
I am the mother of boys and trying to explain to them how sitting in their car, perving on and commenting on a woman's bum in leggins is a part of this.

@LastRoloIsMine

No it isn't Rooty

Thats my opinion you dont have to agree. If you feel posters are not behaving in the "spirit" of mn then report them.

I don't want to report anyone. I just want people not to be so spiteful to one another, based on their views.