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.

Burke repeatedly stated he he would continue to harass woman on the street because he can. Even though on that thread there was hundreds of posts explaining how upsetting and scary they find it. He was setting out to deliberately upset posters. He's a cunt and deserves the banning. Its one thing disagreeing its another to be goady.

Dis, I don't know why you're getting so riled up - everyone's trying to be friendly and helpful, and you're getting all wound up about it.

Of course statistics matter in the real world. They affect everything from whether you can buy a pair of shoes that fit, to how many burgers Macdonalds keep warm at different times of the day, to virtually everything else. Of course it matters if more X than Y do Z - how would you plan for anything if statistics didn't matter?

He wasn't deliberately trying to upset posters, he was sticking to his guns about something he believed was ok. He shouldn't feel forced to change a belief just because others are offended by it. It's that old cliche again but I disagreed with what he said, but I think he should have been allowed to say it and not get banned because people mistook him sticking to his guns as deliberately trying to wind people up. Not everyone who disagrees with you is trying to wind you up by sticking to their beliefs.

Oh, dis.

But you do talk like that.

You referred to Buffy's 'bra burning sisters', didn't you? A metaphorical endearment suggesting fictive closeness, intended to be derogatory.

And factually incorrect, to boot.

Now I'm really confused. I'm not riled up at all, what could make you think that I wonder. Have you been trying to rile me up? If so, sorry for not noticing, what would you like me to get riled up about, would you like me to post a lot of swear words in capital letters for you? How can I remedy this?

Statistics DO matter, they just shouldn't be used as an excuse to hate on men and mock the people who point out that only a very small number of men are abusive in any way.

I don't mind people sticking to some beliefs.

But not all beliefs.

In my book, it is not ok to believe women deserve to be harassed in the street, no.

dis, you're posting in a rather rude, incoherent and ruffled manner, hitting out at people trying to be polite.

If you are not feeling 'riled', then perhaps you should take a minute to consider how much better you'd come across if you engaged, instead of repeatedly contradicting yourself (which I notice you're doing once again re. statistical data).

Jeanne yes but again you're deliberately playing stupid here, I used that comment after Buffy supposedly turned my own language on me and as a deliberate response to see how a feminist liked it when the boot was on the other foot for a change and a man was calling her something she didn't like. So unless Buffy is a time traveller how would she be turning my own language on me? Are we going to see her admitting that she made an assumption that, as a man, I would behave in a certain way? Go on, once you admit you are a sexist that's halfway towards solving your problem.

Jeanne I share that view (I disagree with Burke approaching random people in the street) and I'm clear that he does not speak for me as a man, I'm just saying he shouldn't have been banned for sticking to his guns on it. Couldn't you have just agreed to disagree? He wasn't deliberately winding people up just because he stuck to his own opinions any more than you were deliberately winding him up for sticking to yours.

I'm not playing stupid, dis. I am trying to lower the tension you feel a little bit, but no, this isn't 'stupid', and me posting about how I feel about women being harassed isn't 'playing'.

buffy, I can completely see why you are frustrated.

It is the same old issue, isn't it? People claiming they are just 'reversing' the situation, when we are discussing structural inequality.

He can believe what he likes - but when he acts on it, that's where things get sticky.....

Dis - your sarcasm, stream of thought blocks of text, name-calling - those generally indicate someone who's getting themselves in a tizz

Again. No-one is hating on men. No-one is disagreeing that it's a small percentage of men who are abusive, what is being said, and you've already agreed, is that if you look at people who commit violent crime, the vast majority of them are men. ie. men commit violent crime.

No-one is saying all men are bad because some men commit violent crime. No-one is saying all men commit violent crime.

You're hearing something different to what is being said (and explained, over and over)

Buffy WTAF have I said that "street harassment is no problem"? You really have a problem reading what people have said don't you, because I specifically said that I did not agree with Burke randomly approaching woman and that he does not speak for me as a man. How the fuck can you twist that into me having a sincerely held belief that street harassment is no problem?

No, dis, I couldn't just 'agree to disagree'.

If someone is promoting a crime, why shouldn't MNHQ ban them? Especially in the current context.

I'm slightly surprised you suddenly seem to be claiming insider knowledge on the ban, though. HQ rarely share that, do they?

"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."

Good lord. Am I? Could you explain why?

Can I also ask a question? If you, as a man, had to walk alone down a dark alley at night, would you be more worried about being mugged if you were approached by a man, or by a woman?

If I'm hearing something different to what is being said, what about Buffy? She's claiming that I said street harassment is no problem but surely none of you could have missed it when I clearly spelt out that I did not agree with what Burke said about randomly approaching strangers being ok and also that I am a man and he does not speak for me when he says most men. Surely no one can read that and then take away from it that I am in favour of street harassment? But Buffy said that I was, and I'm really beginning to wonder why, because I thought I'd been absolutely clear that I objected to street harassment but now I'm not so sure that I was, either that or Buffy had trouble reading it in the first place.

I don't think you are posting as clearly as you imagine, dis. It's why we keep telling you you sound very riled and incoherent.

It is hard to follow posts like yours, especially when you are constantly contradicting yourself and introducing spurious claims in the middle of the debate.

Betrant I'd be worried about both, but not "more" worried about either one, why?

Going to miss the point and not read most of the thread and suggest that there were roads in Britain before the Romans came, therefore none of them created the first roads in Britain. They didn't even create the first metalled roads in Britain.

Ok I'll post very clearly then. Buffy this is for you - I do not think street harassment is ok. I think what Burke described is street harassment. I am a man and he did not speak for me when he said most men think street harassment is ok.

I think that's very clear so please don't accuse me of saying that street harassment is ok again.

"Betrant I'd be worried about both, but not "more" worried about either one, why?"

So you genuinely think that you are as at risk from violent crime from a woman as a man?