Not all men

[AskBasil]

Interesting article here

kim is correct that some radical feminists can and do say absolutely vile things about transpeople.

I do not see that this makes radical feminists an oppressive group compared to men, though - and it's the power structure relating men and women/feminists that I understood to be the topic of this thread.

I don't know how to explain this any more clearly, kim: the point about class analysis is that it is about making visible the power structures in society.

Muslims are, I would say, a pretty vulnerable group in the UK, for the reasons chibi gave. So are young black men, another example given. I've no reason to think teenagers are particularly vulnerable, but nor do I think that they are agents of structural oppression (parents of teenagers may disagree with me here ).

They're not comparable to men as a class.

You've already acknowledged that violence is gendered (though I do think it is actually important to question why you think, despite this, that most men aren't violent, yet that I should not assume it's a small group of men carrying out large numbers of violent acts). So why does it bother you so much that we use language that helps women to recognise this for what it is - structural oppression?

"Lies and scare stories" can be deeply unpleasant but it is in no way the same as my inadvertently oppressing you because of some privilege as a feminist that is invisible to me. When fems make men-as-a-class statements they are pointing to such privilege. None of the comparisons you offer do the same thing.

kim yes, that's racist.

arrested for terrorism does not equal has committed terrorist acts

and i very much doubt you had all 841 or whatever it was cases on your mind when you made your first racist post

this is reminding me of that car crash interview with nigel farrage onfriday, you two seem to have a lot of common ground

ugh.

I understand why it bothers you, kim. I have no issue with us having differing views. It seems annie and I do too. It's no big deal.

What does bother me - really quite a lot, actually - is the viciousness with which you've attacked me on this thread, and the nastiness with which you've tried to provoke others by calling feminists names, by accusing feminists of doing feminism wrong.

kim, that is absolutely not true.

I am, I think, younger than you (and part Irish), and I am well aware of groups other than Muslims who have committed appalling acts of terrorism. This has been in the news very recently. I cannot see you have any excuse for ignoring it.

I would also agree with chibi that acts against Muslims such as attacking innocent people or defacing Mosques are, arguably, also acts of terrorism.

'But as usual - feminists resort to insults, sarcasm and put downs.'

'[C]omments like three highly committed mysgonists only turns people off feminism. Men and women. Look at how the FWR board is viewed on MN.'

Your words. Accusing feminists of doing things wrong. You didn't offer it as an opinion. You stated it.

You have still not apologised for defining 'people' such that I don't count as one. And you accuse others of hypocrisy?! How can you not see what you are saying?

'terrorist offenses' are remarkably broad- going on certain websites can be enough to warrant a charge.

this is a million miles from actually committing a terrorist offense, in the sense that most people recognise the term.

i personally can only think of a few- 7/7, the unsuccessful shoebomber, the plan to bring down transatlantic planes, and maybe the murder of lee rigby.

maybe there are another 800 or so that you're aware of that escaped my notice? to be fair, i don't watch the news everyday.

sorry, was that 41% of people arrested on terrorism charges are muslim, or 41% of people in prison serving sentences for terrorism are muslim

only, you've said both now, and they are not even remotely the same thing

But .... but .... you are the person arguing that we can't take comments like this about 'men' in context!

Why is it ok for me to be treated as a non-person, but suddenly it's terribly important we don't risk doing that for men?!

You are basically saying, you think I'm less important than men ... because what, I have some kind of feminist duty to smile and say pretty things and stroke fragile male egos so that they stop being offended?

That is absurd.

Also, btw, doesn't seem it's necessary on this thread. So far as I can see, only one man has commented, and he doesn't seem to have a problem. It's really just you.

And I believe that the more you perpetuate this 'all feminists are mean, wah, the FWR board is horrible, the more other women on MN are going to be scared off it: that is my opinion about what the problem here is.

Ffs, if you can't see.the deployment of terrorism laws is itself ideological then you are letting the press do far too much of your thinking. Compile those figures with the ones for racially aggravated assault, the vandalism against mosques, temples etc. and if you still have a massive statistical blip around "Muslims" then I might give your deliberately incendiary and self serving bullshit comparison a modicum of creditability. But I'd still point out that granting the same considerations of discourse to men as a group to we routinely try to for OPPRESSED AND MINORITY GROUPS simply ENSHRINES THEIR PRIVILEGE IN DISCOURSE.

I'm not going to apologise for the people thing because that was a comment that most people would have seen in context. So an apology is meaningless but I'm sorry for upsetting you

Why do you get to make this argument about generalisations but feminists don't?

Fuck it. Treat men how you want and see where it gets you.

Thanks, I fully intend to, always nice to have permission to do so though

The figures Kim has given are for GB, not the UK. That is why her figures contradict your knowledge of the UK, LRD.