Radfems and transsexuals – an outsider’s view

[NoviceProFemGuy]

I?ve been reading the recent threads discussing feminism and transgender, and pretty challenging I?ve found them too. As an outsider, though, I can?t help thinking a lot of the radfems? concerns aren?t, in reality, an issue when it comes to the practicalities of how men oppress women.

This is going to be a bit of a long post, so to save it all appearing at the top of subsequent pages (assuming there are any) I?ll put the meat of it in a separate post below.

'violent hate filled bigots' according to that male site.
I guess he doesnt like women having opinions.

Stars, did you actually read your link before posting it?

If you did you'd realise 'according to men' is a load of old bollocks.

Yes, Pan, I did.

The whole article tries to paint the survivor as "having sex", not being raped.

Not surprisingly, it was written by a man.

Rape is mentioned ONCE in an article about rape.

there is a tendency, and before i was familiar on these threads i have to confess to being guilty of it myself, of men wanting to play down rape, it's a result of a feeling of collective guilt, because some men do rape. that in no way is an attempt to justify this playing down, just an attempt to explain it.

without consent sex is rape.

Actually, the I Believe Her page linked an interesting blog post on the misogyny of consent; What's wrong with consent

StarsAndBoulevardsSun 03-Jun-12 16:44:10

Feminism would look more reasonable to men if we got back in the kitchen, made them sandwiches and let them do the talking...

stars ,who are you fighting? how is life back in the 1950's ? if you cant find the male chauvenist piggies, just fight the demons in your head!

yes, the victim appears to keep referring it to 'having sex', which doesn't help the portrayal of what actually happened. But this doesn't explain your fatuous link-line does it?

Right you are, CM

agrees with the chair up to now,didnt realise he was a man.
But didnt like your last post to stars.

Pan, the headline itself is "Michael Hitchins Accused of Stranger Sex".

Sex isn't a crime. Rape is. He was accused of rape.

The survivor refers to being forced to have sex; the article opens saying she found herself "having sex". The article attempts to imply consent.

Crikey. Men really do fail to understand the English Language, don't they?

has your attitude alterd now you know i'm a man?

Stop with the victim attitude, CM...

That Kent Online article is horrendous.

The only mention of rape I can find anywhere is the blue side headline, where the victim is referred to as an 'alleged' rape victim, even though Michael Hitchin has been FOUND GUILTY of rape.

Michael Hitchin accused of having stranger sex - yes, because having sex with strangers is illegal isn't it? FFS!

No,I think the more men on MN the better.
esp on feminism.

Saying just fight the demons in your head was not appropriate however,said by a man or a woman.

Ive had a look and wanted to post on dadsnet,but there is a lot of football and diy,not my bag.

No, no problems in English comprehension here. Surprised at how other-wise seemingly intelligent and literate posters forget their skills when posting. The bloke didn't use her unconsciousness as a defence, according to the article. "Men" implies 1. this particular bloke, or 2. all men - both not evidences, hence 'load of all bollocks link line. hth.

that article is interesting, but i find what she says floored, yes consent does mean you have to question the victim, but i would imagine the perpertrater would be asked about conent too, as for in laws made by men sex is 'happening to women' where as actually women are active in sex, enveloping as well as being penetrated, i have no argument there except, in a rape case it's immaterial, i doubt there would be much enveloping going on, just the penitration.

Chairman - stop explaining it, start challenging it. That would be a useful thing to do.

You know, I have no problem with men on Mumsnet. None at all.

What I object to is men lecturing us on issues we're already campaigning for, or telling us how we should feel about x, y or z. It's not on.

I have a few male allies; some call themselves "feminist allies", some call themselves "feminists". Either of those labels sits OK with me, because they all abide by it. I don't find myself having DV or rape explained to me; I don't find them telling me how I can tackle the issue of abortion or FGM. This is all we expect of our male allies on MN. But we rarely, if ever, get it.

the 'head demons' isnt a nice thing to say, but when i say one think i so often get sarcasm about something i havent said, so if they are not arguing with me , who?

i doubt stars is a so fragile to be terribly offended by anyway, but if you were stars , i'm sorry.

No, Pan. It doesn't help.

The survivor has the right to talk about her experience how she pleases. The prosecution and the newspaper should have been talking about it for what it was; rape.

The newspaper failed to do just that.

How are survivors supposed to talk about rape if rape isn't even being described as rape?

dittany, that was in teh article linked , what is wrong with you, you inslut people regularly and use foul language , but your all too ready to play the offended card , shame on you!

You're only sorry if I'm terribly offended?

Cheers...

And no, it was a sarcastic follow on to Ethel's comment. Surely you can read sarcasm?

well pubes , i have, i was talking about it down the pub just the other day

or did you expect me with a placard walking up and down market street?