Not all men

[AskBasil]

Interesting article here

kim, I don't see any responses on this thread that come close to the insults you've levelled at feminists as a group - all the while insisting that referring to people as a group is somehow deeply wrong and insulting.

I understand some feminists can be aggressive and downright transphobic. I've said that on this thread already.

I am not interested in spending my entire life saying 'mea culpa' for feminists as a group, while you spend your time telling me how horrible all feminists are.

I do not really understand what you get out of that.

I'm sorry, but I'm going to give this thread a little break, for the sake of my sanity, because it is dragging me down.

I am definitely capable of harshness, I am consciously and directedly harsh in certain moments of discussion including this one.

However, I do regard all discussions in this sort of mode as performative. This means that basically I regard the speaker's effect on me as intentional; so if I feel angry when someone posts, I take that to mean that this is an issue that the speaker wants me to feel angry about or if I feel sympathy, I take that to mean the speaker wishes to evoke sympathy. I do not work from the basis that I have a right or need, during the process of discussion, to remain in an emotional equilibrium and I do regard emotions as a vital part of the communication. I recognise that I attribute this view to others and recognise that they do not work in this way and have thought and thought and thought about it but the bottom line is that I think this is the way most clearly to respect the stated position of the speaker: you assume that they are constructing themselves consciously.

Most people, I would agree, construct themselves unconsciously a lot of the time (including me, I'm not Lady Gaga), but I think that the way to consciousness raising is to point to people's unconscious ways of constructing themselves. In my own experience, such moments can be embarrassing, unpleasant and destabilizing but they are key to my own development of social and political consciousness. I know that I am most harsh when I perceive other speakers deploying strategies that attempt to trump other speakers positions with how bad it makes them feel to hear it. I agree that I could be more facilitative in these moments. I resist being facilitative I think because I don't like that requirement of me as a woman but recognise there might way to resist my social conditioning as facilitative without necessarily moving in to kill when I perceive others are making that call on me.

So you'll see if you look upthread that consistently my position wrt framing things in palatable or non-palatable ways is that I think the outrage that 'nice men' feel when women describe men as violent, or the embarrassment that they feel about 'women's issues' which man described is necessary and instructive for those individuals. Oftentimes, as we have seen at length on this thread and elsewhere, those feelings are then misattributed - 'it's the feminists fault that I feel bad about being a man in this context' - but it's that I want to tackle, as part of the process. I do not want to shy away from evoking in anyone an angry or or guilty or self conscious response because I just think it is the fulcrum point of change in that individual and not something we should avoid. It's not that I just don't care about how others feel, it's that I think how others feel in response to the discussion is central to the process of discourse and consciousness raising.

It's really interesting that you're choosing to batter LRD with that point Kim when she has been consistently engaged with actual issues with you and consistently first to defend you.

Perhaps you could take it up with some of the actual people whom you are describing?

Did you not like my response to your PM, then, Kim?

Well people are people. Some will minimize and belittle that which they do not agree with or understand. This is a human thing not a feminist thing. It always strikes me as patently absurd that feminism seems to have to hold itself to higher standards. After all it's going to have its spectrum of assholes and angels same as any other demographic. It would be like finding a bad person who advocates democracy and going "right well obviously democracy is wrong/stupid/failed etc".

Outs I liked your insights on the violence thread, I hope your example encourages other people to express themselves as they damn well please.

I think sometimes, and I do mean on this thread Kim, you've said things nicely which are nevertheless utterly violent. I do not think that aggressive responses in that context are about shutting you up. Sometimes aggression is absolutely about saying, don't speak that! But others it's about, well, a range of other things like not accepting your position, assumption, perspective etc. because of the symbolic violence it would do to accept that point. I may have been harsh about issues regarding racism, for example. But the violence of some of those assertions you made was extraordinary; you can't call people out for being aggressive if you are being massively violent yourself. I get that you didn't mean to be violent or hateful in your speech but that doesn't mean you weren't. Your nice intentions are not the thing you were taken to task for, the unconscious violence of your positions was what attracted harshness from myself and others.

I think people are aggressive in response to the extent to which they are affected by what is said. I regard it as absolutely telling that feminists attract a violent and aggressive response, it's called hitting a nerve. Telling feminists they can't hit nerves because people have tried to shut you up - and I do accept that people may have attempted to silence you when you point out the oppression you've faced - is just not logical.

Martorana - apologies. I didn't mean to ignore your question. I got a lot of responses yesterday.

"I even asked you directly what words you thought we should be using to get our message across to men and you haven't replied."

If you point me to the original post I will try and answer in context.

LRD I'm sorry this thread has been hard on you

kim do you think it is the same feminists who complain about silencing who also do the silencing? I don't see it. The silencing of feminists is very specific, to the point of shutting down or attempting to shut down events or conferences or saying x cannot be discussed because y. I think the silencing you say feminists are carrying out, I would probably characterise as disagreeing, not the same thing at all.

"The harsh reactions to posts on here by some posters really puts some people with different views off posting or engaging on here. In my opinion. It's a tough place to post if you have different views."

I disagree. I have different views on some very contentious topics - abortion for a start. And I have not found people being harsh as a consequence. People have robustly argued against what I have said, but I don't think they do so in an aggressive or harsh way or make it personal.

There are occasions where I find it upsetting to post about some issues around motherhood, because I find it upsetting for anyone to disagree on specific points that I firmly believe in and think other feminists should also believe in. But that is ultimately a judgement I have to make before posting. If there is something that I believe that would deeply distress me if anyone disagreed with me over, I have to decide not to post it.

" I have some different views but i do feel scared posting them because of the potential reaction"

I think you should give it a try.

I am sorry that you didn't want to reply to my PM. Is that because you thought It was too harsh? Because it didn't seem at all harsh to me. You challenged me in yours- I replied. Isn't that what discussion is all about?

kim, you yourself were holding feminists to a higher standard, though. You insisted it's not ok to say things about men as a group, but you said 'feminists' were using sarcasm and insults. The implication was you meant feminists on this thread, as a homogeneous group, though I really fail to see any particularly insulting posts other than that one.

Disagreement is one thing. Claiming you're responding to the insults of feminists (where? Who? Is it us? Is it some other group you assume you can make us responsible for?) is a silencing tactic. It's saying you're allowed to throw out comments like that one, but we're not allowed to throw out any general comment ... even if ours was a comment that, so far as I can see, got a 50/50 split in responses from the only two men on the thread.

flora - thanks. I know it is a bit whiny and 'me me me,' but I think possibly the only way to make clear that 'feminists' are not all hard as nails and happy to take the flack is to explain that we are people and we do feel hurt just like anyone else might.

I think that is the problem, buffy.

I think - and this is annoyingly theoretical/academic, but it possibly matters - that kim and manwith don't accept class analysis as a recognised discipline. They don't see it as different from generalising, so they feel when we refer to classes in a power structure, all we're doing is skipping the step in the argument where we provide numbers. Thing is, the numbers always change; the basic pattern, sadly, does not. So it's more efficient to talk about the pattern, not the numbers day-to-day.

Should probably put that more clearly. 'we refer to classes in a power structure, they feel all we're doing'

Buffy, I agree, mostly. Whether or an incident of generalising is okay depends on a combination of the following:

1. Is the generalisation true?
2. Is the group being generalised about a disadvantaged group?
3. Is this group being generalised about adequately defined as a group?
4. In what context is it being said, in terms of the wider argument stated by the speaker?
5. Is the meaning of the generalisation made clear by the wider argument of the speaker?
6. In what context is it being heard in, in terms of the wider stereotypes held by the rest of society?
7. Who is it being addressed to and how vulnerable are they?

I am a lurker man. I lurk regularly but don't feel it is my place to post too often. Mainly because there was a thread about the role of men in feminism (or something along those lines) a while ago. The general opinion was that men should stay out of it and not vocalise their opinions. The same advice was given to white people to stay out of racial issues.
Saying that it looks like some people have changed their opinions on this thread.
All I can say is that 'not all men' will be offended with the use of 'men'. I'm not particularly. I understand that men that don't like to generalise about any group in a derogatory way or aren't comfortable with that, maybe offended or not happy with exceptions to their standards.

"
"I even asked you directly what words you thought we should be using to get our message across to men and you haven't replied."

If you point me to the original post I will try and answer in context."

I don't think context is necessary- apart from the context of this thread. You have said several times that men need to have things explained to them in a way that they will understand. I have asked you to tell me what to say so that men will understand.