Not all men

[AskBasil]

Interesting article here

And I'm not trying to derail apologies. I agree it would be better if the topics just got discussed.

I'm perhaps too much of a cynic to lay a lot of the end of the slave trade to a Christian movement saying 'it just is wrong' tbh. International capitalism just doesn't/didn't work like that at all, and I'd wonder about the introduction of more mechanised farming techniques being relevant so less person-power is demanded - it's an economic rather than moral imperative. A comparison is the Magdalene Laundries which happily reduced in profile only after the washing machine was more prevalent in rural Ireland around the early 70's.
Of course one can also ask, in seeking evidence, 'where else does a Christian-based leverage have a decisive role in ending an evil but profitable process anywhere in the world?' Can't think of one.

Well, we did, surely?

I mean, I know about slaves in the UK. I know it wasn't a big slave labour thing, but they were there!

I feel as if this is a huge digression but it is interesting. I was just chatting to my mate on facebook about this idea, and she was saying how very common it is in the US for people to push black students to 'talk white' - ie., to change their accent and so on. Even now.

Very interesting discussion.

I think pre-emptively using 'some' is really widespread in debate anyway but even when precise statistics are used there are still people ready to shout 'liar' or derail on other grounds.

Kim is right and it would avoid some derailments but, like others have said, catering to the people who are more concerned with misconstruing context and taking personal offence than discussing important, even life and death, matters seems a bit pointless.

Their priority is defending their personal feelings (which are irrelevant when discussing men as a class) and weakening the original point, not engaging with it. So not using 'some' all the time will probably only put off people from feminism who don't really have in them (at the moment) to be genuine allies anyway.

'All men...' means all men do it.

'Some men...' means some men do it.

'Men...' depends on context.

Kim is right that it would avoid some derailments...

you forgot to say some

how can anyone be expected to meet minimum standards of human decency if you don't placate their narcissism first?

anyway, back to how feminists are oppressing everyone and doing feminism wrong, this is your song, kim, over to you

The trouble with a long thread like this is forgetting what has been said and not said. But the oppression of women is built into the very fabric and structure of our society. Into our laws, our language and mores. So saying men oppress women is accurate in that any man who is not actively not oppressing women is by default part of the oppressor class- simply by living his life. Obviously most men aren't actively oppressing women on a daily basis-but they are colluding with oppression. And that goes for gay men too.

Does that institutional oppression exist for trans people? Or should I RTFT?

Kim they are not going to change.

kinsorange to whom are you referring?

Those of us who don't really see the need or want to change our language to suit a class who oppress women, so that feminism is more palatable to them? Why the fuck should we?

Men oppress women.
Society oppresses women.

I get that it's difficult when that is made explicit for the oppressor class, but tough, naming a problem makes it easier to solve.

I'm assuming that Kim means that either a) feminists oppress transpeople or b) that the posters on FWR oppress transpeople or that c) society in general oppresses transpeople.

Yes.

Of course you dont have to change.

So why make the comment?

I'm not sure what change I am supposed to be making.

Martorana You must prefix every statement you make about class discussions with either some or not all or you won't appeal to the people who are 'doing' the oppression.

So, when discussing men as a class being violent, you must put some men are violent, because otherwise it makes men cross and they won't like us anymore. Or something along those lines.

Apparently this will stop MRAs trolling on FWR.

Yes, I get that. And no I'm not going to. I first had that discussion in 1976!

I'd like to know what changes I am supposed to make in relation to trans people.

Ooops! Will shut up.....

Sorry

I'm sorry- I really didn't mean to sound chippy , but I see that I did.

CapyChaos - It won't stop the 1%(made up statistics) of men who are MRAs from trolling any forum or RL situation. It Won't stop the 30% of sexist men out there from being a pain in the botty. It would stop the rest of men, nice pleasant non-violent men who try to treat others fairly and politely from being offended that you've just called them violent, and ignoring the other things you say.