Not all men

[AskBasil]

Interesting article here

I think it's different, though. Making lazy generalisations is one thing and should be pulled up on.

But when it's used in a context like "Which group is perpetrating most of the violent crime in our society" and the answer is "young men", then it is a legitimate question to ask "Why are young men perpetuating violence?"

You don't need to jump in with "not all young men are violent!" - nobody said they were. That's when it's derailing, IMO. And in fact it is unhelpful to the discussion to preface it with "some men" "these men" or "violent men" because that is setting them apart from a whole category of "normal men" and defeats the entire point of the research/interest because the point is that the group which has been singled out for violence is "young men". There is no difference, other than their violence, between these young men and non-violent young men. That's entirely the point. You cannot examine the potential causes and factors which lead to violent behaviour by excluding them as a separate group, you need to look at this group by including their peers. If the group was "poor men" or "businessmen" or "married men" or "men who own dogs" or anything it would be the same. There will always be exceptions. It doesn't need to be said.

kins, why is your definition of 'correct' more important than mine?

I think there are a lot of incorrect parallels - and frankly insulting ones - on this thread. But you seem to be unconcerned by those?

kim - IMO, saying 'men are knobs' is sexist crap, because it's an insult, done with the intention of annoying people. 'Men oppress women' isn't an insult. It's a general statement of fact.

Quite frankly, it would be nice if there was an immediately obvious distinction between violent men and non violent men, because then we could all avoid them and/or lock them up somewhere. The uncomfortable truth is that violent men aren't actually that different from non violent men, apart from the fact they are violent. People don't like this because it feels uncomfortable. Good, it should be uncomfortable.

Then you didn't read my whole post.

People should stop derailing if they don't want a thread to be derailed. Not censor the contents.

Kim, I know because I have made such arguments myself and know why I make them.

And you have made multiple blanket statements in both your posts. What? Literally all people in the whole world are going to be upset by me making blanket statements? How awful. Literally every single person is going to get sidetracked and get into an argument? How negative of them all, or maybe all people are not like that and you just generalise about people because you are a misanthrope.

Or maybe you just meant some people, given the context, and given that most people actually do work out meaning based on context, we both know that.

Yes, kim, it stops the thread being derailed.

It stops some people getting upset.

And it also reduces the issue to one that - sorry - completely lacks any acknowledgement of the power structure.

The reason this rhetoric is powerful is because it makes the power structures in society visible, and invites us to think why violence is gendered.

If we keep saying 'some men' we lose that.

I don't really see why not upsetting some people, or not derailing a thread, is so much more 'accurate' and 'important' than acknowledging the fact that violence is gendered. If our language can do that, and shock some people out of their complacency, so much the better.

bertie - yes, good point.

I think it is precisely that discomfort people are feeling. I just feel angry that we're supposed to rephrase so that this discomfort is less obvious ... why?! It should be obvious.

I mean ... imagine the Deep South in 1950.

I can perfectly well believe some black men beat up, stole from, etc., white people.

I cannot believe anyone, these days, would find it acceptable to counter the statement 'in the Deep South in 1950, white people oppressed black people' with 'but not all black people! Some of them were criminals!'

Oh dear.

kim, that quotation has been misattributed to Dworkin so many times. It's bollocks. Look it up. It's a line in a novel. She never said it.

Increasingly, I don't see why feminism - or feminists - should have to pander to the sort of people who cannot be bothered. Sorry. But why?

For every person who stops listening when they hear 'men oppress women', I firmly believe there are more women who suddenly feel a lightbulb come on. I was one of those women. And I actually kinda think we might matter a bit more than offended men in this scenario.

YY Buffy, great post.

kins, why is your definition of 'correct' more important than mine?

Are you saying that you dont know what truth is?

it didn't turn mee off feminism

i am a person

there you go. kablam! logic'ed

I think feminists can say what they jolly well like. And I think a lot of people will be very happy for them to keep using the language we see here.

If we keep saying 'some men' we lose that

No you dont! You gain it!
Because it then becomes the truth!

They can see it Jeebus. But they will remain a minority group.

Yes because those are stereotypes, and the transpeople thing is incorrect/a misunderstanding,

Women are weaker than men

i think the answer is we are meant to shut up about the abuse and oppression of women (which is structural, by the way)

it seems to make some people uncomfortable. can't think why...

maybe some people could suggest a reason