Not all men

[AskBasil]

Interesting article here

To be fair, LRD, I do think that perhaps kim was trying to say the same thing as me, but perhaps not managing to get her point across. I don't think she's wrong at all.

And kins - I have got kim's point from the start. While I agree with some of what she says, I don't agree with all of it by any means. Added to that, her style of simply repeating the same point again and again with no change in nuance or deeper explanation may well have made some people feel like she thinks we're all stupid and that if she just speaks loudly and slowly enough we might finally understand.

"People on here get incredibly defensive about things being said about how cispeople behave and act and don't listen to the arguments. "

Could you say a bit mor about this? I hesitate to ask, because I don't want to be seen as one of the "but- I need details" brigade. But I genuinely don't know. If I am part of a group that oppresses trans people I want to know.

That probably looks rather contradictory - let me amend the first sentence.

To be fair, LRD, I hope that perhaps kim was trying to say the same thing as me, but perhaps not managing to get her point across. I don't think she's completely wrong.

"Am I feeling defensive, yes a bit! Decided to post and run for the hills!"

I don't understand why you are defensive. However, I do think it's a shame when people say "oh this is too difficult for me- I'll just switch off." Particularly when it's not a particularly difficult concept. And I do think it's a shame when people don't think becoming informed is important.

Well, perhaps I have been far less clear than I think.

I thought I got Kim's point, and your point, way back up the thread. I really don't see how it's a difficult one to understand and I'm slightly bemused that anyone can read this thread and assume I've been too dim to follow the 'play nicer with the menz' argument all along. I get it. I even get it may be useful in some contexts. But since the thread started out talking about why feminists use the language of class analysis, that was my main focus.

I also feel a bit that we've been treated to a long lecture with no nuance. There's been no attempt to take on board what we're saying, either. It comes across as entitled and rude. And now I'm coming across as rude too, but I'm fairly irritated.

Kins, there isn't a situation of some women getting feminism and some not, there is a situation that the world is constantly changing and people have to respond to the new situations they themselves are in or that they hear are happening in other parts of the world. women's rights not something that you just hear one day and either accept or renounce. It is something that we are all constantly learning new things about and having to respond to.

The issue of context is not some abstract or intellectual one of comprehending the written or spoken word. It isn't about levels of education or knowledge; it is a basic skill that people use all the time. It is far more important that everyone works towards having a better understanding of how something operates within a context than it is that they think a few simple rules can be applied and everything will be easy. Life isn't easy. Making moral decisions isn't easy. There wasn't a day some of us were off school and a set of simple transferable rules were explained to everyone else. Understanding what is happening to other people and society isn't easy. It depends on people being prepared to understand by listening to the actual context.

This works in both directions, both in how people say things and how people try to understand them. I have heard many, many times, people quoting Kimberle Crenshaw on white people being racist, or Julia Serano on transphobia in ways that I consider very damaging. That is because they have used those statements in a way that is harmful within the context. But when I've looked at Kimberle Crenshaw's writing, I absolutely agree with everything she says in the context she says them, and while I do not agree with everything Julia Serano says, some of her points are very valuable and I do agree with within the context.

And if people want to not think about the context a statement is made in, and think everything can be reduced to some kind of sound bite that can be evaluated as a stand alone, simple sentence, and that those sentences can be dumped into any other situation and still make sense and carry the same connotations, there's not much chance of them understanding women's rights or any other societal issue.

This is worth reading on the subject: aroomofourown.org/everyday-mansplaining-can-men-really-be-feminist-allies-by-vabvox/

Isn’t this about having an academic level of discourse without the academic rigour that goes with it?

kim - I dunno, since I'm not really a person according to you, I doubt my opinion matters very much, does it?

boney - how'd you mean?

I will say, I don't think this is - or should be - an academic level of discourse. I don't think any of these concepts are hard to grasp. I'm uncomfortable with the idea of feminism that's setting itself up as too complicated for anyone who's not highly educated on the subject (and that's self-serving, because I'm not well read, I know).

How do you know most men aren't violent, kim? You keep stating this as a given.

And forgive me, but I don't see how we know it's true. I don't want to believe that most men I know are violent (though I know some violent men and I see rather more violent men in my day-to-day life, as I expect we all do). But I don't believe in the 'it's three hard-working rapists doing all the raping' theory.

I've just said what I think. I think most men are violent. Sorry, but it is a logical conclusion to me, given the amount of male violence. I just don't find it plausible it's three highly-committed misogynists with time-expanding devices doing all of it.

I hate thinking most men are violent. I can't make that conclusion fit together with my normal life, because most men I know are lovely and kind and seem really nice. But the amount of male violence out there indicates to me that yes, most men are violent.

Kim, the use of the word cis is a different issue though, isn't it? There are numerous reasons why some people who understand what the word cis means don't agree with it. In my experience, the majority of people are totally unaware what the word cis means.

The derailment of the argument is then going to be that a word is being used that people don't understand, so they have to ask for an explanation. The second derailment is that people who have not identified they are trans will then realise they are, the third is that many people will then claim to be agender and so what is being said about cis people does not apply to them anyway and they may be interested in what cis people are like, think etc as they were unaware that such people existed, the fourth is that they disagree with what cis means, and so on. None of these may be what the person who used the word cis actually wanted to discuss.

This is totally different to an argument over whether you should say some cis people or cis people do X. That is kept on topic by the person responding with suggestions about how to change the situation or asking for more information about what the situation is, and derailed by, but me, my Auntie Beryl, the cis woman in the paper shop don't do that.

Oh, I'm doing feminism wrong again, am I?

Silly me.

How fortunate you are there to correct me. Nothing you say has ever turned anyone off anything, has it? Even people like me, who you defined as not a person, are only too thrilled to listen to your inclusive and high-minded discourse.