Not all men

[AskBasil]

Interesting article here

with regard to your examples, Kim, I'm neither offended nor in agreement with them because they are simple one line sentences, devoid of any actual context. Depending on the context, I may agree or disagree that white people are racist, and I may agree or disagree that white people benefit from racism. It does largely depend on the context of the rest of the argument somebody is putting forward.

For example, if somebody is putting forward the idea that there is a global system of binary racism between white people and POC which benefits white people, I would disagree on the grounds that such arguments are used online to trivialise and dismiss the Jewish holocaust and the genocide of ethnic Chinese people by Japanese people (or should that be some Japanese people!?) in the twentieth century among other examples, and that it is extending out an American experience that does not fit with the global situation. It has nothing to do with the grammar or the use of some, because if they were to say some white people benefit from racism and some POC of are disadvantaged by it, it does nothing to clarify who or what situation is being discussed, and it effectively becomes a statement that isn't really saying very much at all about anything.

buffy - well, I was going to go with 'discuss,' but I figured it was too obvious.

kim - sorry to state the obvious, but this is class analysis, the point of which is to show power structures.

Do you actually think that black people are in the same power position in terms of race, as men are in terms of gender? Honestly?

Yes but even when you say most violence is carried out by men this needs to be proved ad nauseum and you still get the "women do it too". Derailing will happen regardless kim. There are just too many hoops to jump through. And to lose the benefit of class analysis as others have already explained for me just isn't worth it. Feminism shouldn't have to compromise in this. No other political movement has to (or shouldn't have to).

Well here's the thing why even mention the men that don't rape? That's like talking about famine in Africa and saying "don't forget all those full tummies in the USA." Men who don't rape are by definition NOT the problem (unless we're talking about rape culture I guess).

Actually it is worth discussing eliminating rape entirely even from a male's enlightened self interest point of view. If there were no rapists it would be magnitudes easier to go up to some woman strike up a conversation without her having to stare into some non extant crystal ball and try and figure out if your going to rape her not. Everybody wins if we tackle rape, expect the rapists of course, but why on earth wouldn't we?

I think as well with these statements you are coming out with kim there is no distinction between making statements about classes of people who are oppressed and those who are doing the oppression. I think that distinction is incredibly important. Making generalisations about classes of people who are oppressed e.g. black men perpetuates that oppression. The opposite is not true.

This thread is depressing. Even a thread about how feminist discourse is hijacked by shouts of "not all men" gets jumped on by shouts of "not all men". Thereby proving the existence of the "not all men" problem.

This is an interesting article:

aroomofourown.org/everyday-mansplaining-can-men-really-be-feminist-allies-by-vabvox/

No class analysis is a tool (not a privilege) for those oppressed (and those trying to show oppression).

It depends whether transpeople are making those statements about other oppressed people.

If a black man said women talk over them. No. That isn't a class analysis (and not true). That's shutting women up.
If a black woman said white women talk over them then yes that would be a class analysis (and true).

Context is everything.

I was going to link to that piece Flora too. It's really good.

Buffy, I think that depends on the nature of the statement made. If somebody accuses me as an individual of being a racist, that is very different to them making generalising statements about the racism of white British people to me. I do think people fail to make that distinction sometimes, on a variety of topics.

The fact that I am white says nothing at all about my individual capacity to cope with criticism that is about me as an individual. There isn't a part of my brain that is more resilient to personal attack if I am being verbally attacked for being white rather than for being a woman.

The distinction is that I don't see people pointing out the racism (due to socialisation) of white people as being a personal attack on me, even if they are saying it to me. To take it personally and make it about me as an individual removes the ability to talk about systemic racism and white British people as a class.

I have honestly never seen or heard men defend or argue on behalf of women, the way women on this forum do for men. Interesting.