Not all men

[AskBasil]

Interesting article here

YES! a discussion that does not center them, their feelings etc and refuses to do so is necessary.

Holy fucking hell with bells on.

I have never in my LIFE seen anything like this thread. Pity as I quite liked the articles, especially the stages of becoming a feminist ally.

I think the thing that really strikes me here, is that I wonder whether there isn't an assumption on some people's parts' that consciousness raising can be done without ANY pain at all, even if you're a member of an oppressing class.

A lot of the argument here is centred on whether it's OK to moderate a message to spare men's pain or not, but I don't see how authentic understanding of how these power structures work can be gained as a member of an oppressing class without experiencing some sort of cognitive dissonance/guilt/emotional pain. So I'm not sure why a feminist would be concerned about wasting energy on sparing the 'good' men's feelings. The 'good' men are part of the problem too afaiac because they think of themselves as good when they are not and ignore a class based analysis. They will just have to experience the pain and get over it if they want to be allies.

Woah! Like, yeah!

I'm so sorry but I've had a glass or two of wine, I just am not sure if there's sarcasm here.

See, I think there's a persistent misconception that we have nothing to lose by moderating our language to 'some men'. Here's how I see the pros and cons of giving up on class analysis and its language:

pro

• We make feminism more palatable to some men and women, who felt angry and hurt by what they saw as man-hating.

• We make feminism more acceptable to some men and women, who believe truth to be absolute and who see statements of the 'men are/men do' variety to be inaccurate (as opposed to being a different way of expressing the truth).

con

• We lose all those women who would have found class analysis and its language profoundly uplifting, helpful and reassuring.

• We imply that feminism is lesser than other ideologies that relate to the structure of power in society, because whereas those ideologies will continue to use class analysis and its language (cf. Dr King), we will give it up. Thus, we will imply that feminism is in a constant state of self-doubt.

• For most non-feminists (male or female), nothing we do will change the way these debates go. The debate will continue to be undermined by other forms of internalised misogyny, because internalised misogyny hits out not at language, but at the fact of women wanting to be equal.

I'm sure there are more, but those are the ones that strike me.

Leave her alone, for goodness sake.

You're all feminists, why aren't you working together instead of nit-picking and infighting?

I would liken it to my experience as a straight white female; while I have always 'constructed' myself as an ally to WOC and LGBT causes, I figure I am never going to get that stuff 'right', because it's not my experience.

If I well-intentionedly say or do something that isn't helpful, I would expect a gentle (or not) putting right without agonising over or invoking NOT ALL STRAIGHTS/WHITES. Isn't that perfectly reasonable?

Therefore I expect no less of men, whether allies, those who are ignorant of the privilege they carry, or, indeed, class enemies. But I do agree: this is not something that can happen without pain.

Tough though it is, given our socialisation, as women we need to shrug our shoulders at the pain caused by the shaking of privilege, and move on with our task.

I find the whole concept of someone's opinions being of less value than someone else's because of who they are or what they represent is anti intellectual. At the end of the day, an argument should stand or fall on its merits. 'Check your privilege' is as simplistic and chauvinistic as 'what would you know, you're only a woman'.

These debates always remind me of 'animal farm' with radfems replacing the pigs scoffing the human's meals and walking in two legs. What is the point of attempting to replace one sexist system with its mirror image? Is that really the intention?

I find the whole concept of someone's opinions being of less value than someone else's because of who they are

In my experience this isn't exactly the case, though; the NAM interjection tends to be deployed in a specific attempt to negate women's experience.

"My experience of sexual harassment was terrible"
"Not all men sexually harrass!"

"My rape was terrible"
"Not all men rape!"

"My employer refused to pay me equally"
"Not all employers discriminate!"

Why not deploy voice, and power, where needed, instead of attempting to negate women's experience?

" I wonder whether there isn't an assumption on some people's parts' that consciousness raising can be done without ANY pain at all, even if you're a member of an oppressing class."

I think this is the crux of it.

Buffy Bill and Ted mode should be deployed more often, no problem.

Lg

It's never gonna work for you guys is it?

You waste so much energy fighting each other.

"Anti-intellectual" is kind of a red herring. It's anti-intellectual to deny women's lived experience in order to subordinate it to an ideologically-constructed worldview which benefits from women's experience while denying it.

Lg, nobody on this thread has claimed to be a radical feminist. I also don't agree with privilege checking or subjective claims being a reason to disregard rational argument dubious, but these are not the topics of the thread, unless I missed something.

I think you mean "some of" you guys.

To use exact and correct language does not negate experience, if anything it amplifies it. Replace men with black men and maybe it is clearer. Does it negate a raped woman's experience if someone corrects black men rape with not all black men rape or not all those convicted of sexual assault are black?

Powerful language at the expense of correctness has its place but I suspect accurate language used eloquently has far greater power. Now I will go check my privilege and discount my opinion accordingly.

Sarcasm is a legitimate linguistic strategy, Buffy.

HELLO, btw. I am new to FWR and thought I would just barrel in, shur why not.

lemonmuffin1 What you term as 'you guys' is 52% of the population, all at varying stages of engagement and consciousness. I can only speak for myself (hence almost negating the term 'you guys') but I find that profoundly inspiring, regardless of individual disagreements.

We are using exact and correct language. It's the language of class analysis. It's been explicitly theorised - in intellectual contexts - at least since Marx (you could argue well before that, but that's the obvious context).

You may disagree with its effectiveness, but it's not 'incorrect'.

Larry, can you clarify for me under what circumstances a statement like "all black men rape" would be made, and would therefore be relevant to the debate? I am not, of course, in favour of disregarding rationalism, but I am unsure of the basis under which you're injecting race into the debate.