Not all men

[AskBasil]

Interesting article here

I don't believe anyone objects to the different slant, lemon. And as you see, annie, if I read her rightly, actually agrees with kim.

What do you want us to learn?

How to alienate feminists by defining them as 'not people' and by setting up one rule for men (whose feelings of hurt are important) and another for people like myself (whose feelings of hurt can be entirely discounted)?

How to stereotype other oppressed groups, such as Muslims?

Or what?

I would love to give it a break about men's feelings.

And yes, I am still 'obsessing'.

kim, you don't seem to get that I am not bothered about that missing 'some' because I have a vindictive desire to home in on typos. I'm bothered because you are explicitly claiming that, while it's important to qualify statements about 'men' and it's not ok for us to make general statements even in the context of class analysis, you do not extend the same argument to feminists including myself.

That's really not ok with me. Why am I less important, less deserving of respect according to the standard that is central to your entire argument?

And I do feel you are stereotyping Muslims, yes.

lemon I don't see any difference between what kim has posted and what we can read fucking everywhere about how feminists have to be nicer to men or no-one will listen to those bitter harpies. I don't need to learn any more about how to accommodate men. I've been learning it all my life. And I sure as fuck won't call it feminism of any slant.

kim there have been very interesting articles linked in this thread about how "progressive" men can help address the problems from NAMALT derailing. Generally by not doing it and instead listening to women and not making it all about themselves. Have you read it? I doubt it because all you have done on this thread is defend the position that NAMALT and it's our responsibility as feminists to moderate our language so that men will listen to us.

I am tired of being told I have to moderate my approach. Tired of being told that before I can discuss any topic of real interest to women that I have to frame it in terms that won't offend 'men'.

I say 'men', because the good men I know are more concerned with dealing with sexism against women than they are defending the indefensible simply because it happens to come from a man.

i am far far far more likely to die at the hands of a man, as a result of gender based violence, than experience any terrorism by any group of any religious affiliation

interestingly, when far right groups carry out racist attacks, it isn't classed as terrorism, just a lone nutter. huh, i wonder why.

Now now chibi don't forget, NAM. The fact that statistically you are likely to die at the hands of a man, suffer violence at the hands of a man, be discriminated against in the workplace by a man, and so forth, doesn't trump the fact that you are only in the world, as a woman, on suffrance.

Be nice, and know your place, and maybe men won't be forced to interrupt you to tell you how wonderful they all are.

I have already pointed out why there are a disproportionate number of Muslims in jail for terrorism: Muslims are disproportionately targeted by terrorism legislation, for ideological reasons. Plenty of people of various persuasions target, harass and terrorise minority groups, it's that their activities are described at best as racially aggravated crime, elsewhere as straightforward assault and vandalism. And your figures are wrong. And when you choose to make those statements in the context of structural oppression of that group your words add to and legitimise their oppression.

When we say men on the other hand...

kim the comments on the Guardian are always anti-feminist. You should be on there telling men to listen to women and not to fucking interrupt every discussion to focus it on them. But you're not, are you? You're here telling women to moderate their language.

Pointing out statistics about terrorism or crime is not racist, although it helps if you get it right and analyse what the statistics are actually saying. Associating terrorism with Muslims, black men with crime etc. is racist. How can you not see that?

I would prefer MI5 to focus on evidence of terrorist activity rather than racially profiling a particular group of people. Since the vast, vast majority of Muslims are not terrorist, it is a monumental waste of time and effort to focus on them because they are Muslim.

one million for outsself that sums it up brilliantly

i think the thing is, kim is not a feminist so much as a kim-ist

See I think the outrage men feel when they are presented with the kind of statement NAMALT attracts is good. I want them to feel it, it's like they get a tiny insight into the enraging experience of being socially constructed as powerless.

Yes! The experience of their (unconscious) power being sublimated, of being the least important part of the discourse, is very unfamiliar to men. I appreciate that that may be threatening for them, but it should be something they learn from, not seek immediately to negate.