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.

Bertrand no, statistically I'm more at risk from violence from a man rather than a woman. But numbers and statistics on some spreadsheet chart are no comfort to me when I encounter a stranger in a dark alley at night. Whether it's a man or a woman, I'd be worried in case they were going to do something.

Buffy,

'Oh, I nearly forgot. You didn't answer my question about how you react to things 'men' can do that are desirable and flattering. I imagine you're quick to correct these unfortunate and inaccurate generalisations, yes?'

Can I give you an answer to this? I like to think I would correct them, but I am human. I don't self analyse enough to say yes or no. But there is a big difference, isn't there?

If I say that women are fantastic at multitasking (another probably incorrect truism, I believe the evidence is that both sexes are equal), are you going to cavil? And does it really matter? Everyone is happy and you go away feeling encouraged? If I make a negative generalisation, however, it has a far more profound effect and probably does bear correcting.

Anyway, it is up to you, really. If you want to engage with people generally (and men in particular) it is worth thinking about the effects of the statement 'men are violent'. If you want to merely preach to the choir, just carry on saying it regardless of how many men take offense.

If I say that women are fantastic at multitasking (another probably incorrect truism, I believe the evidence is that both sexes are equal), are you going to cavil? And does it really matter? Everyone is happy and you go away feeling encouraged?

larry, it's exceptionally patronising and rude to assume this sort of generalisation would pass as praise that would make women 'happy' and 'encouraged'.

You've been reading FWR long enough to know that.

It was not vitally important that you know I disagree with it up until the point at which you falsely said I was ok with it. I had said from the start I didn't agree with what Burke said about approaching the woman in the first place, so it should have registered that I didn't approve of street harassment there. After you lied and said that I did approve of street harassment it became very important to me to spell out clearly that I do not approve of it. Now that you know your conclusions were wrong, I'm going to trust that you won't accuse me of it again.

You're right I dislike feminism, I think it's very harmful to equal rights. But surely you don't want everyone who isn't of a particular political ideology to leave the forum? All you'd be left with is people who have the same beliefs you do and I thought the point of a forum was where people of different beleifs could discuss things together? Ideally without all the namecalling you've thrown my way (and hopefully been put off doing now that you've seen what it's like now that the boot has been on the other foot and the man has called the feminist a name she doesn't like for once)

Jeanne,

Absolutely not! I think I am pretty damn good at multitasking and that it is an invaluable skill. I would definitely not take it as patronising if someone said it to me but I take Buffy's point re context.

" Whether it's a man or a woman, I'd be worried in case they were going to do something."

So you are probably the only person in the world would not feel a sense of relief when you realised the approaching stranger was a woman. Right.

"and hopefully been put off doing now that you've seen what it's like now that the boot has been on the other foot and the man has called the feminist a name she doesn't like for once"

Er- have you any idea how often wome are called names they don't like?For once???? You think you're the only one?

For an outsider, a "class analysis" is sometimes hard to tell apart from a "sweeping sexist generalisation".

Actually, I would also tend to "not all men" to statements like men are stronger than women. Well, my personal choice of phrase is "on average", but same effect. Because unless properly qualified it has a tendency to slip into ... so we shouldn't employ women on building sites.

The one about men being violent towards women is particularly difficult I feel because it's not even the majority of men. At least with taller/stronger, that's true for more than half.

I object to women like gossipping, I object to women can't read maps, I object to men are violent, because I find them all to be harmful and sometimes self-fulfilling stereotypes. That's not to say that in academic circles an analysis of propensity to violence or mapreading skills among different groups can't be a useful thing. What isn't a useful thing is when the results of said statistical analysis then get plastered all over the paper out of context as "Science says it's true, women can't read maps!".

So I'm with those who said it's all about context, and context on the internet can be rather ambiguous. Interesting discussion, shame it's got into mud-slinging.

I think I am pretty damn good at multitasking and that it is an invaluable skill. I would definitely not take it as patronising if someone said it to me but I take Buffy's point re context.

Yes, larry. Are you a woman? No? Then I think that was buffy's and my point.

You're right I dislike feminism, I think it's very harmful to equal rights.

Well I suppose that explains how you can totally decontextualise Burke's statement and make it into a hit and get hit scenario. You know, erase all of women's lived experiences and socialisation and basically turn the scenario into a faults on both sides bar fight.

Disliking feminism as harmful to equal rights is like disliking the civil rights movement as harmful to racial equality. The mind boggles.

When you say you '"dislike feminism", what is it specifically that you are disliking?

"You say you are a physicist and yet think h3o is heavy water? Brilliant advert for female science!"

Nothing to respond to there Larry? Just it sounds like the sort of thing a raging misogynist with a HUGE axe to grin would say. I'm sure you aren't so you should probably apologize to Whirlpool and ALL women. wonders if you'd refer to "black science" or "muslim science"

"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."

Yes there is. It's called Patriarchy.

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.

So if Burke went up to children in wheelchairs on the street and shouted "cripple" at them... we should all just ignore that too should we? Yelling "nigger" at black people?

He's "sticking to his guns" Principals!

Why would I feel relieved upon seeing the stranger was a woman? What a ridiculous presumptive thing to do. What if she was a mugger and beat me to a pulp, relieving me of my wallet and phone in the process? Are you saying that woman are not capable of mugging men, are you really that sexist to deny female on male violence?

'Disliking feminism as harmful to equal rights is like disliking the civil rights movement as harmful to racial equality. The mind boggles.'

I have been thinking about this for a while, both from these boards and real life discussions. The thing is I think that the vast majority of people want equality between the sexes (except for some complete old fashioned sexist buffoons).

The elephant in the room here is what 'equality' means. It is a bit like the old Tory/Labour arguments, with each side claiming they wanted equality, but one talking about 'equality of opportunity' and the other 'equality of outcome' and each believing that the other was being preposterous.

My (late) mother was an ardent feminist and campaigned for equal rights in marriage/ women having their own bank accounts etc in the bad old days. She, however, thought that 'modern' feminism (as she called it) had gone too far and it was about women failing to want to take personal responsiblity for their lives and just blaming 'the patriarchy' for anything that befell them. I think she was partly old fashioned and found it hard to shake off being born in the 30s. On the other hand, I think she at least partly had a point in some cases.

Women in many fields are now having BETTER outcomes than men in many 1st World countries, as opposed to equal ones (education, salaries up to 35 years old and increasing, longevity). Sure, I can see the legacy of historical sexism in the make up of FTSE boards and parliament. However, new MPs are far more female and companies have pro female promotion policies. There are still clearly environments which are sexist for men. However, there are more and more sexist environments in favour of women. Some would say that this was a quid pro quo for historical sexism. But is it fair for my sons to pay the price for their grandfathers' privilege? Personally, I don't think so.

This post is going to get shot down like a lead balloon and, in many areas, maybe rightly so. However, I speak to many women in my working life now and a lot are passionately anti feminist, which always amazes me. I hear a lot of the above in their replies when I challenge them about how they can be a woman and anti feminist.

Larry.. you forgot to say sorry for being a knob. Sure it was unintentional.

Weird that so many women keep bringing up their anti-feminism with you

That analogy would only hold if the civil rights movement was also about one group of people being superior to others. You cannot compare a movement that is all about discriminating against one gender, to a movement like the civil rights movement which is about equal rights.

Disregarder, you'd be less afraid because you'd know that almost as a rule, women don't do that. Unless you're just generally a bit of a coward.