This is bullshit thread #3

[HornyTortoise]

Following on from www.mumsnet.com/Talk/site_stuff/2716917-This-is-bullshit-Thread-2

Open ongoing discussion welcome for anyone to join in.

Just tried to reply to see max posts were reached, hope this is OK to do...

western societies have used positive discrimination in many situations to even out inequalities so yes it is perfectly possible to 'pick and choose'. any argument to reduce positive discrimination is dubious when coming from the privileged group eg rich people arguing against positive discrimination at university for those from poor backgrounds - self interest wrapped up as equality?

Is it a fair comparison to say that you can't have equality and segregation at the same time? You can't argue that makes and females should be treated just the same and st the same time argue for funding to be earmarked to women. You can't pick and choose.

See attached image

So why doesn't the same apply for TW?

And please don't start with "because TW are part of the oppressor class" because that's just offensive tbh.

why?

ItsAll Great image. I love that it's really clear.

Why is it offensive? Dunno - good question. Let me think about that for a minute.

Whilst there are things earmarked for women and there are women's protected spaces, I argue that a consistent approach is needed. Things are earmarked for women and protected spaces are there for women in recognition of the oppression women experience. Once that oppression is gone (oh happy day!), then yes, we can talk about doing away with all of it and opening everything up to everyone, including men.

How is it fair to say, well yes MTT you are women for the purposes of accessing these aspects of women's protected spaces and things earmarked for women, but not for others? I don't believe that this is fair to MTT. I believe it is unfair to say that you are 'woman enough' for certain things but not for others.

So why doesn't the same apply for TW?

If you mean positive discrimination I suspect it should - but that doesn't mean splitting eg women specific funding, it means having standalone TW specific funding.

it surely depends on the discrimination faced. why tw not tm who have a whole childhood and adolescence of being raised as second rate citizens for instance? what are the facts in the uk that identify areas that need positive discrimination for tw in particular or both tm and tw and cover enough of the population to be statistically significant? in areas where there is proof yeah why not positive discrimination?

Fritz

Thanks for asking that because it makes me question myself.

I think I'll answer it in two parts. Firstly just why I find it personally offensive, but then to go on to look at it from a structural pov.

I suppose I find it offensive because it lumps me in with the class of people I feel massively uncomfortable with and desperately don't want to be part of. I hate the way men behave. I hate the way they treat women. I've seen the way men talk about women behind closed doors and it makes me sick. I was never part of that. I've gone to extreme lengths, both physically and emotionally to distance myself from that so I feel offended that all of that is simply ignored and doesn't matter.

I get that on a class level I'm male and male is the oppressor class but at an individuaal level that is so abstract. I can only relate to the world as an individual.

However, I also think that the biggest mistake of neo-liberalism is to concentrate solely on the individual and throw the class issues out of the window. I also see that the most vocal and influential TRA's are clearly part of that oppressor class and display zero empathy for women.

I would never want my individual feelings to derail the bigger picture so I'm sorry. But that doesn't stop me getting offended on the way.

Does that make any sense?

The daft thing here is that nobody even said it - I just preempted it being said

why tw not tm who have a whole childhood and adolescence of being raised as second rate citizens for instance?

Sorry, I meant both.

Any sector of society who faces a particular difficulty should be given help with that difficulty (in a way that does not negatively impact other groups)

You can't argue that makes and females should be treated just the same and st the same time argue for funding to be earmarked to women. You can't pick and choose.

This is an argument commonly made against feminism, that women are asking for "special treatment" not "equal treatment". Is that how you meant it?

I was never part of that. I've gone to extreme lengths, both physically and emotionally to distance myself from that so I feel offended that all of that is simply ignored and doesn't matter

How is this different from a man saying NAMALT and taking offence at feminist class analysis?

thanks for the answer Helen. I do understand - tbh I think it offends a lot of men, as well as mtt, as if it is a personal insult or slight on them. just based on discussions with my middle class white male colleagues (aka the ruling class but of course they are not!)

Flora

No not at all. I have no issue with doing that at all. I agree with positive discrimination.

My point was that Oscar had said that we can't cheery pick what applies to TW and I was trying to understand what she meant.

I was just saying that it sounded the same as when people say things like "You can't argue that males and females should be treated just the same and at the same time argue for funding to be earmarked to women. You can't pick and choose." Not that I actually think that myself.

helen
It makes sense to me. It is a bit NAMALT but I think the fact you are aware of it and have made a conscious decision to reject masculine behaviour puts you ahead of many others in that class.

I hate the way men behave. I hate the way they treat women.

But you are a man Helen and you don't behave that way, or treat women that way. If you remove yourself from the collective 'men' you are allowing that group a proportionate increase of individuals who do behave that way. Which in turn gives the collective 'men' more power to continue being oppressive to women.

Not all men are bigoted, mysogonistic arseholes. You included Helen. That's what we must teach our sons. How to be a man who respects all others.

Flora

How is this different from a man saying NAMALT and taking offence at feminist class analysis?

Yeah maybe it is exactly the same.

I've got to be honest I do struggle with class analysis. I get it, but I think that you have to pair class analysis with individual rights. Having either without the other is always going to cause problems.

NAMALT is often used as to derail discussions about issues which face women and changing the focus back to men.

I'm sorry if I'm guilty of that but this is a discussion specifically about issues that impact women and TW?

I agree that male violence, and especially sexual violence, is one of the biggest issues in this debate.

I think as a society we urgently need to improve the way rape is dealt with in the criminal justice system. At the moment, millions (literally) of men get away with it, and the very small percentage who are convicted are given absurdly light sentences (especially when we consider the impact on the women they raped). There is no real deterrent, and in some places men encourage each other to commit acts of violence (I'm thinking of new stories about sexual assaults on university campuses).

I haven't seen anyone quote Susan Brownmiller yet, so I'm going to: she says that rape is 'a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a constant state of fear.' That was back in 1975, and I think many feminists feel it just as strongly today.

Fugg

I agree. But even though we all know that I'm male. Society does not include me in the "man" group because I'm trans.

I can stand up and say that I'm a man and I respect women but nobody is going to listen. 99% of people have absolutely no understanding of this whole conversation.

Still ploughing through thread 2 but just wanted to pop on and say thank you to everone for such a calm, sensitive, intelligent discussion It's amazing what can be achieved when people are not shut down!

Sorry that all sounded a bit defeatist. I'm not defeatist or I wouldn't be here. I want to support these aims as much as I can.

'a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a constant state of fear.'

Not all men!

(sorry I couldn't resist )

but I think that you have to pair class analysis with individual rights

I don't agree that's always the case. If the class analysis is that men as a class are dangerous to women as a class we therefore segregate the sexes where there is particular risk. The individual rights are presumably that a particular man is no threat to women and therefore should be entitled to access the segregated space (although I don't agree that necessarily follows). That completely undermines the segregation and the protection it gives women as an individual woman cannot assess the threat from a single male stranger.

Wench

You are absolutely right by the way. I totally agree.