Men, if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.

[curlew]

Fantastic article by Laurie Penny

Oh massive cross post (I am so slow at getting my ideas out!!!) I do think I worded my original post crassly. As I posted it I was uneasy for the reasons dreaming said. I didn't want to compare.

it must be cheering to know that there is no legal basis for discrimination against you in this country, when you are

a 12 year old groomed by a paedophile ring, no one cares, social workers state you are making your own life choices

made redundant when pregnant

have your report of rape no crimed by a special sexual assault team

a really boring person would probably point out that having a law which prohibits discrimination is probably not so amazing if in practice it is ignored or applied haphazardly

ho hum.

As someone who has also travelled in Middle Eastern countries, women in the UK are not even close to being oppressed. As for a spectrum of oppression, that would be like trying to claim you've suffered amputation when your fingernails are cut.

as someone with more than one braincell I can recognise a spectrum when I see one.

Lack of legal oppression doesn't mean lack of cultural oppression.

Take Scotland, in the 21st century, we needed a legal discussion on whether the crime of rape could be called rape if there was no evidence of force. The ruling which came out stated that there was no need of force but one of the Judges disagreed and continues to argue that this is simply a practice direction but does not change the established case law in Scotland that requires rape to involve force.

Force is considered necessary to ensure that the woman was not consenting - that pretty much assumes that the woman would be lying otherwise. And when you look behind it, the reason that there required to be force was that rape was a capital crime - now that sounds like it was viewed as a serious crime against women ? Well, no, it was because rape was a crime against men - a man guilty of rape was defiling another man's possession, so in order for the court to justifysentencing a rapist to be executed, they wanted signs of force to be there as clear evidence of the crime.

Now, the significance of that in Scotland today is that whilst in a practical sense evidence of force is no longer required for a guilty verdict, technically, it is. And many Judges still believe that a practice direction is not law nor can it be.

I think a woman in Scotland, unable to get her rapist convicted, because of this, is oppressed legally and culturally.

Rambling but the point is that much of the legislation that oppressed women in the UK has only recently been dismantled and that in cultural terms, we have a considerable way to go.

Yes I realise what you mean now kim, thanks for the clarification.

And I think my point was that the legal oppression that still exists in Scotland today stems from exactly the same place that it does in other countries that continue to actively oppress women in a legal sense.

Rape myths are enshrined in centuries of law - I was amazed to find that we are only a handful of years ahead of some of these countries. And it stems from a belief that is worldwide that women tempt men, that they should cover up, that a good woman fights off her attacker, that a family is shamed by a woman being raped. We're less than ten years away from this being the established case law in Scotland, not Pakistan or Saudi or wherever, but Scotland. So yes, it may be less bleak than other countries but it's still soul destroying. And it's even slower to filter down to cultural attitudes.

It's always the same people in these threads, shouting about how there's no such thing as opression and misogyny. Is that the only reason they are on mumsnet?

Is the only reason you're on mumsnet because you think there is? Odd question.

what a zinger SF!

?I'm not from round here, I don't understand.?

I don?t know if you directed that at me or not, but I will take a leap of faith and assume you did. This board is global. If you make a conceptual comparison between your link and mine, that only people in the UK could possible understand, then it will go over the head of every woman on the planet who does not have deep experience of UK media, as well as my own.

You cant see the difference in the links? The article you link puts men in the stocks and hands out rotten fruit and veg to the women applauding. The article I link takes men out of the stocks, stands them on their feet and shines a cold hard light in their face and the ground they stand on. No deference to or need of an audience, just a one on one. I am afraid your link seems to appeal to women Penny herself specifically identifies with in the article: ?After all, most of us grew up learning that being a good girl was all about putting other people?s feelings ahead of our own.?

Say what? My daughters would not see themselves in that, they would pity anyone who had an upbringing that led them to that view. Someone born in the 1960's... I can certainly see society at large and well meaning but naive parents fostering that kind of outlook in a child, forcing individuals to later self realisation. But Laurie Penny was apparently born in 1986, I was floored she is that young. Either she is intentionally writing to an older and specific audience (which is quite possible given the tittle of her other piece ?Today?s teenagers are smarter, tougher and braver than my generation ? and yours, too?) OR British society is a few decades behind where I live OR her personal experiences growing up were far harsher than they should have been, which would not invalidate her personal views but might hamper her ability to communicate her message in this particular article.

I gather the substantive point of the article, Curlew, is to communicate to men. In that it fails. You really want to have a chance to have men on your side, use my link. Since you think the articles are so very similar that should not be a problem for you. Bottom line, your link does not communicate the message you supposedly want men to hear, it communicates a message some women want to hear being delivered to men, but one that will be lost in translation and make more male enemies of feminism than friends.

Well, I am new DuelingFanjo, and I can tell you why I came here. It was outrage.

I saw the mumsnet logo on another internet site:
?mumsnet : By parents for parents?

The dad in me face-palmed, my spleen lurched and my four humours were unbalanced at sight of it. That said I understand the problems of the internet name-space and the marketing inertia of names.

I really wish people would leave "women in the Middle East and some parts of Asia" out of conversations like this.

It's a derail and using women in these countries who aren't here to speak about their lives and issues as a prop or token (not from any actual concern about these women as humans) to say "Look how bad they have it! How can you complain?". It is a statement that benefits neither women in "those places", nor women in the UK.

Whether intended to or not, it is a silencing tactic and that the likes of Dawkins used it during Elevatorgate (see here: phawrongula.wikia.com/wiki/Richard_Dawkins'_EG_Comments_at_Pharyngula) should give people a big clue as to how anti-feminist it is.

Now, we can go back to discussing exactly how sweetly we are supposed to request men to stop enabling misogyny.

"Well, I am new DuelingFanjo, and I can tell you why I came here. It was outrage.

I saw the mumsnet logo on another internet site:
?mumsnet : By parents for parents?

The dad in me face-palmed, my spleen lurched and my four humours were unbalanced at sight of it"

Do you see no contradiction at all in feeling so strongly about the Mumsnet logo while simultaneously saying that women are overreacting about the sexism they face in their everyday lives?

I honestly don't think the child abuse analogy is a good one. Here's why.

The issue with men challenging sexism is that (in general) it is in their best interests to maintain the status quo. Men (in general) whether they realise it or not, benefit from the way from the current societal mind set. So for them to challenge it, they have to be prepared to give up a bit of their privileged position. Which is a big ask. But because most men are actually kind, sensitive and thoughtful human beings,it's reasonable to assume that once they realise this, they will be willing to make that small sacrifice in the name of equality. The problem is that it's a difficult thing to think about or to take on board. Particularly if the privilege is so ingrained and normalised that it doesn't look like privilege. Sometimes, particularly from the inside, it can even look like equality.

But you assume that feminism is the only route to equality, so men who are pro-equality should therefore be pro-feminist.

"Do you see no contradiction at all in feeling so strongly about the Mumsnet logo while simultaneously saying that women are overreacting about the sexism they face in their everyday lives?"

Twas pure sarcasm about the logo curlew, the only strong reaction I had when I saw it was to chuckle at the incongruity of it. As to me saying or implying anything like "women are overreacting about the sexism they face in their everyday lives."... ummm.... errr... huh... where... what?

"But you assume that feminism is the only route to equality, so men who are pro-equality should therefore be pro-feminist."

Not sure what pro feminism means. I an talking about being anti- sexism!

DadWasHere- your post of 01.51 pertains.

If it's merely being called on to be anti-sexist, rather than explicitly pro-feminist, then I agree.

But "you can choose to challenge misogyny and sexual violence wherever you see them. You can choose to take risks and spend energy supporting women, promoting women, treating the women in your life as true equals" seems like quite a one-sided version of anti-sexism.