Not all men

[AskBasil]

Interesting article here

My apologies Kim, you actually want us to write entire sub clauses in order not to hurt men's feelings!

There would be a discussion of the statement where people would consider your contextless statement in a variety of contexts, some of which would make it sexist and some not.

I don't think there is a reason for anyone to get defensive. We have all been on both sides of the situation, depending on if the statement was about men, white people, straight people etc.

Kim-is there any particular reason why men shouldn't be accommodating to women sometimes, rather than the other way round? Why shouldn't men use their intelligence and reason to think about an argument occasionally?

Why people disengage is subjective. I don't like phrases like 'check your privelege' or 'collect your people' and disengage.

In the absence research, we can only go on personal experience. Mine is that people accuse me of generalising about men regardless of my phrasing by a. Taking me out of context and b. Misconstruing my argument on purpose or c. Quite reasonably, because they were aware of a wider context I had not encountered.

Kim, yes they do, but that does not mean they have a good reason or that I can prevent their defensiveness.

I would say to any man feeling a flash of outrage when reading statements about men as a class in relation to women as a class, that outrage is what you absolutely should feel about how women suffer as a result of your privilege. It's that rage that I want to awaken in you. That moment where you qualify it, deny its relevance to you, or distance yourself from it, that is the moment where you are choosing to protect the structural privilege that being male affords you. It's an actual act of oppression to the women whom you are so keen to insist you would never disrespect, interrupt, objectify, hit, pay less or whatever. So, wonderful, I'm supposed to now congratulate you that you haven't hit anyone? ODFO.

I know I've said this before, but I am going to say it again because I'm baffled it doesn't seem to be getting through.

The power of class analysis for feminists is not, I believe, primarily that it changes men's behaviours and minds.

The power of class analysis is that it can be hugely helpful to women.

Women actually matter quite a lot to feminists. Sure, not all women or even all feminists suddenly feel a weight lifting when they read about structural oppression. Not all women read a sentence like 'men oppress women' and think, wow, that's so simple, suddenly, it all makes sense, I don't feel stupid and useless and guilty and confused any more.

But some women do feel that sense of relief and understanding. They matter. So, we go on using class analysis because it helps women. If it also happens to convince some non-feminists, and some men, all to the good, of course. But feminism is primarily about the women.

(Apologies for overuse of italics. I just don't get why this simple point cannot be understood.)

I think the "some men" clause actually gets your average "nice guy" to casually opt out of the conversation. They get to avoid any self-reflection on how they might be part of the problem, because it's just "some men", over there, not me, who are causing this global suffering of women. They can just detach and not give it any more thought. After all, what possible influence could they have over what "some men" are doing?

And in the meantime, they will join in the sexist jokes down at the pub. They will continue to (consciously or subconsciously) choose to employ men over when even when qualifications are equal. They will continue to see sorting out the kids and doing the laundry as their wife's job, even if she works full time. They will continue hear of a friend or acquaintance laughing about banging a drunk woman or pulling "surprise anal" on their girlfriend without ever saying "hang on, that's rape".

By their actions and inactions, even "nice men", who I suppose we agree constitute "most men", continue to contribute to the societal oppression of women, and it never occurs to them not to. Because they aren't "some men".

So while I agree with Kim's (persistently made) point that perhaps "men are violent" statements might be better replaced by "most violence is carried out by men", I vehemently disagree that "some men...." is a better qualifier as it absolves "most men" of any responsibility to effect change. And I also agree with Buffy and LRD's point that getting the message to women that they are oppressed by men is absolutely vital, because so many women continue to remain blissfully ignorant of how bad things are, or think they're alone.

What we really need to do, IMO, is think of language which will force "most men" into some serious introspection, rather than pander to their feelingz - to make them realise that even "nice men" are part of the problem unless they are actively working against the oppression of women. To hold a mirror up to their privilege and show that they, too, are accountable - Bob from Accounts will continue to rape until the men he knows stand up to him and tell him what a despicable human being he is.

And I think that "men are violent" etc should do that. Posters here have said that if they were told "white women talk over black women", they would use that information for introspection and personal improvement, not to take personal offence and disengage from the argument.

So what makes (some/most) men resistant to being able to examine statements like this in both societal and personal terms without just sulking and shutting down?

Kim It's about a way of making men or oppressors listen to an argument.

You forgot some because men like Dervel manage just fine.

But I knew exactly what you meant, because it was in context.

I think you are arguing against something that most feminists just don't do: I've never seen statements, articles or OPs simply declare 'Men are rapists', 'men are violent'. It's usually used as shorthand later in the discussion once prevalence and statistics have been established.

Anyone interested in the issues would easily understand that, people feeling needlessly defensive or with an axe to grind will jump on semantics and derail.

I really don't think feminists modifying their language will work the way you hope.

Mmm. It's interesting to try to think of language that'd make men think about it, annie.

Personally, I suspect that the changes there will have to be slower and more to do with gradual exposure. I do believe this is happening, despite everything. Norms shift. I would hazard a guess fewer of us are married to men who secretly believe marital rape is really pretty much ok, than our mothers were.

I think numbers and statistics do a lot of work here, though. Not so much with rape, because the myths surrounding that are so hugely pervasive. But you cannot really pull wool over the stats on women killed by their family members. Karen Ingala Smith's project on that really has some clout, because it's challenging the 'oh, it's some men ... not most men ... probably not nice, UK-based men like me ...'.

I am getting from this thread, that it is actually women that feminism want to [dont know word] to. I always thought that it was men.

I would still say though, that the women who are left that dont take much notice, would appreciate the some word. Else they tune out.

I know, I know, some word or other in that will be wrong, and picked apart and dissected.
So I may choose not to bother to reply!

And as I said before, half the time I dont understand the responses, or they are far too wordy for me to be able to swim through them and work out what on earth they mean, plus which it is hard work to do so[but I cant write that, I will get blasted for it, or told, why dont I care enough etc etc] Not sure I am going to send this post.
Am I feeling defensive, yes a bit! Decided to post and run for the hills!!

ooh Annie, I think that you are getting kims points . Hurrah.

And LRD too?

Um ... kin, I don't mean this rudely, but I get Kim's point. She wants to see us modify language to appeal to men. We know that. I'm afraid it is not a subtle or a complex point.

It is something one can consider how to do. However, it is not something I would want to do most of the time, for the reasons I have explained in fairly exhaustive detail.

May I ask: do you not understand what we are saying? Or are you so ideologically opposed to the idea of women writing for the benefit of women, that you cannot even engage with us?