Not all Romans

[AskBasil]

The Romans built the first roads in Britain.

But not all Romans

The Vikings built ships which sailed as far as America.

Not all Vikings.

Rabbits are known for reproducing really quickly.

Not all Rabbits.

Etc. etc. I think I will add "not all" whenever anyone refers to anything ever, until people stop saying Not All Men as a first response to a class analysis of men's behaviour.

Dis- I originally asked the question, if you're new here I think can seem quite a large generalisation with the "men" thing. People have explained to me why they don't need to always say "some men". I'm happy to acknowledge I'm wrong in my original offence.

Also no ones "attacked" me here and I'd like think that's because I've been polite and listened to the answer. Maybe you can take something from that.

Where did I get that belief?

Oh, bless you.

It's not my belief. It's a well-attested stereotype across Western culture over the last couple of millenia. Probably the best-known example in pop culture is the old idea that women's wombs 'wandered' about their bodies, making them 'hysterical' (the word is etymologically related to uterus).

If you're not familiar, google or a decent library will educate you on it.

And no, sorry, that's not an answer, that's poorly disguised feminist-bashing.

Like, asking for the most basic respect of being treated like a person means that you must feel this extreme, irrational emotion about and towards men. And conversely, to like or love men, you must accept non-personhood.

YY.

Your last sentence really brought me up sharp, too. Disturbing thought. Because of course, as feminists, we're constantly being pushed to admit we like men and to deny that we're (hairy-legged) lesbians who hate them.

Well I've noticed that a person going by the name of Burke was recently banned because he was challenging the prevailing feminist opinion in one thread. He displayed no more hostility to people than they did to him, yet only he received a ban and everyone who was expressing a pro feminism opinion got let off scot free for their hostility towards him. As it definitely seems to be an unspoken rule that you cannot challenge a feminist opinion or you will be banned, I'm reluctant to pursue such an argument in case I too was banned for it. I would take the opportunity to say that this de facto ban on different opinions is very harmful. I feel that if you have faith in your own argument you will not be afraid to let others challenge it. Obviously some feminists on here don't feel confident enough that they can adequately defend their belief and so they must ban it from being challenged to ensure superiority. Each to their own with that though I suppose.

dis, check out MNHQ's Guidelines. They'll explain why people get banned, and no, it's not for disagreeing with prevailing feminist opinion.

I've seen Justine disagree with us plenty of times, and she's yet to ban herself.

Percentages have no relevance, if you seriously think that it's more reasonable for women to fear men than men to fear women simply because men are statistically more likely to harm women then you are seriously in the wrong.

Men really do seem to miss the point, almost on purpose it would appear.

Not all men of course.

So why was Burke banned then? It can't be for the post he described how he'd defend himself against an attacker, because others also described how they would hit someone and they were not banned. And it couldn't be for his hostility towards others because they were also hostile towards him and didn't receive a ban. So this pretty much rules out anything other than he was going against the established belief and as such needed to be banned as dissent against feminism is not allowed here.

dis, check out MNHQ's guidelines. They explain why people are banned.

Social analysis is not harmful. You really do just see what you want to see in posts don't you? It's also funny how you're deliberately rewording what Burke said to make him seem like he would be the attacker rather than the victim. You mention that he'd be willing to punch a woman to the ground but totally fail to mention that this was in the context of an instinctive reaction to a woman physically assaulting him.

I'm reluctant to pursue such an argument in case I too was banned for it.

His argument was that it was fine and dandy to sexually harass women, and if anyone hit back, he would reduce them to a pulp. So if that is your argument, and you really need to stand up for it - then do it.

If you get banned, what's the problem? Getting banned for being a misogynist on Mumsnet. Well done you. No great shakes though, it is. [Unless you really value the advice that you could get, if you were to post anything except your 'views' on here].

Perhaps you could go and report your banning to your gang and get your back slapped as to what a good fella you are?

"Dear?" Oh my, you've dropped your guard there Buffy. For a minute you had me fooled into thinking you really DID object to men calling women names they don't like. Well to answer your question love, it's because percentages have little relevance in the real world.

You mention that he'd be willing to punch a woman to the ground but totally fail to mention that this was in the context of an instinctive reaction to a woman physically assaulting him

Nobody would have attacked anyone had he/Burke not sexually harassed her on the street.

Being deliberately dim is a really really dull angle.

Oh, dis.

How rude of you, when buffy had made such an effort to adopt your language, even when you know she dislikes it.

Percentages have relevance in the real world - how could they not? They are ways of measuring it.

Sorry, how does "the Romans built the roads" differ from "men are more violent than women" in terms of factual information.

because there was a such a thing as Roman empire, with organisation, heirachy, decion making mechanisms, employment, economy, stratas, government, etc etc etc ,and it was this entity which built the roads.

There is no equivalent in violent men.

I did not see him say he would beat someone to a pulp, maybe he posted that and it was also deleted, in which case I'm sorry that I didn't see that post. The only one I saw was where he said he'd hit someone until they either ran off or were on the ground, I can't quote it exactly as it has disappeared but that was roughly what it said. Hitting someone until they are either away from you, or on the floor serves a practical purpose seems to me like a badly worded way of saying he'd hit back until he wasn't in danger of further attack. He has no legal or moral obligation to retreat, and if he feels in danger from her continued presence in front of him, it would make sense to do something that makes her NOT be so close to him, maybe shoving her away. I would say that actually hitting her would only be ok if she came back to advance towards him after he had shoved her, as that shows clear intent to further assault him. So I would disagree with what he said but not by a great deal.

Buffy is ok with men calling women names they aren't comfortable with, demonstrated by when she reversed this and called me "dear", no doubt thinking she was being all hard and clever against a man and scoring a victory for her bra-burning sisters.

Oh dear, dis.

Bra burning is a myth.

You really don't much know what you're talking about, do you? Too busy trying to point score when someone has turned your own way of talking against you.

See that's where you let yourself slip. You sa that Buffy turned my own way of talking against me but I DONT talk like that. In fact the one instance where I have, was after Buffy called me dear, and purely as a response to see how she liked the boot being on the other foot for a change. So unless Buffy time travels, why would she think I talk that way? Unless she made an assumption about me because I'm a man, and we all know that every man is a violent serial killing rapist...