Not all women

[phoolani]

Reading yet another feminism thread that didn't hit double figures replies before someone interjected with 'notallmen...' And the original post didn't even talk about all men, just about 'so many men...'
Have you ever seen an opposite example? Of men interjecting a 'notallwomen' in anything disparaging women as a whole?
I had a quick Google and came back with nothing.

Feminism is a specialist subject. The basics are not universally known and take some learning

That explains the poor take up by WOMEN on MN, never mind men.
The answer to all those threads asking, 'why don't you come on the feminist boards?' Why don't you identify with feminism?......

Actually that's, 'the poor taken up by Women on MN never mind rest of the female opulation worldwide.

what is the difference between a man propounding a reasonable criticism to what is being asserted as feminist, and misogynistically trying to detail threads and draw attention to himself

One at least pretends to listen to what the answers are and engage with them, the other merely bangs on and on with whatever drum he came here to bang.

You obviously do not want critical voices on here.

Well, that's rubbish. We have one or two who post regularly, and when they have their sensible heads on, they engage and actually debate. They do tend to be female though and tend not to need to drag their soap boxes out at every opportunity.

The only exceptions have been the "happy hookers", but then again, that is entirely understandable.

"One at least pretends to listen to what the answers are and engage with them, the other merely bangs on and on with whatever drum he came here to bang."

By 'engage' you mean agree - not engage critically. I'm off. This is silly.

Um, just delurking here to say that I, and many, many women have been alerted to feminism purely through reading these boards.

Not only are they informative and educational, it is precisely this kind of interjection by (some) men, which solidifies opinion.

There are lots of men who post on these boards, who are brilliant. They get it because they are both invested in women's rights and informed. That is the key word - informed.

Many women like me are NOT educated about the basic tenets of feminism. But, as we ARE women, what we read on here just resonates - I recognise it. The lived experience of being a woman, if you question it, cannot fail to lead to feminism.

It's women's lived experience that leads to them educating themselves about feminism. As men don't, and can't, have that, they have to learn first and then accept it on faith.

It might not feel to them as though they are derailing or trolling but to the women who can predict it almost from the first sentence, it's obvious and follows a highly predictable pattern.

By 'engage' you mean agree - not engage critically. I'm off. This is silly.

No, I think I was explicit in my language, but if you wish to use it as an excuse to go, that's fine. Engaging critically is fine, if you had bothered to read what I wrote, you would have seen that I specifically mentioned that we have regular posters who engage critically and they are welcome to do so. Talking with a few of them has made me think through my opinions and beliefs and it's been interesting watching their stated beliefs evolve over time as well.

You read what you wanted to read and then flounced. I'm not sure you understand what engaging critically is, unless I'm wrong and the definition is that we all agree with you?

This is an odd reaction from you when all you want to do is "critically engage", but I respect that you've gone and won't engage with you again when you inevitably come back and do the "and another thing" post.

It feels like there might be some deep down ingrained 'guilt' (not sure if the right word to use) at play here.

As in we know from statistics that the vast majority or murders, rape, DV/abuse, assaults/violent crimes and indeed crime in general is committed by men. But it seems like a thing 'you must not state' because in doing so you are of course saying that ALL men are like that. Which, of course, is not the case. But men (and some women) seem to get so offended and affronted by real life statistics and truth - NAMALT talk ensues.

I hope that makes sense?

And I agree that the only times I've seen variation of NAWALT is in response to porn/strippers/chores/prostitution.

NAMALT comes from fear I think. As Tiny said the stats and evidence of male violence and domination are so overwhelming. What do you do in the face of that except scrabble around in the dirt desperately saying yes but they're not all like that, look this one is quite kind...

The trouble with accepting the male privilege leads to nearly all men acting in ways I don't know how to describe - 'socially violent' maybe? Like interrupting conversation, detailing it to topics they want - is that you then end up accepting by default a subservient position in your relationships.

Mothers going on about their lovely sons is a good example of the clash there I think because on the one hand they are the adult, they want to feel in a position of authority, of being 'teacher', but yet deep down they know it likely their sons will grow up not to respect them, and to instead expect deference and respect from their mothers.

Don't know if that makes sense. Sorry I'm not very good at explaining myself.

NAWALT doesn't exist because men aren't afraid of us. So they can make us 'not like that' if they want to. By control. Women are whatever men want them to be.

Good posts Tiny and Batteries

Xeno, did you say "and another thing" in a Columbo accent?

I am a troll!!!

Here is my thesis:

Socialism needs feminism, and feminism needs socialism.

My goal here on Mumsnet is to carefully seed this into discussions. We can win this fight.

won't engage with you again when you inevitably come back and do the "and another thing" post

Yes, add that one [the encore posts where no one is actually clapping] to the pattern I outlined earlier!

NAMALT comes from fear I think. As Tiny said the stats and evidence of male violence and domination are so overwhelming. What do you do in the face of that except scrabble around in the dirt desperately saying yes but they're not all like that, look this one is quite kind...

I think that's so true. There's an instinctive need to sort of 'other' the threat and play it down. It takes a lot of courage to say that it's not a small minority of 'other' men out there. It's our fathers, our brothers and our sons who rape, who kill, who brutalise and degrade women. Much easier to run to the safety of NAMALT!

I think a lot of NAMALT is that people always cluster like with like. I smoke. I go to festivals. It's not surprising that a lot of my friends do one or both. Birds of a feather and all that. If the men in your circle are gentle and civilized it can be hard

...to marry up the statistics and your daily round.

Completely agree with your analysis of some posting patterns that have been plaguing the board recently, yetanother. Spot on. I'm finding it quite offputting, because I simply can't be arsed to explain the basics of why I believe what I believe to someone who's only going to sneer at it.

Returning to NAMALT, it's a really interesting point. Thinking through it, I wonder if it's something to do with some sort of nurturing/caretaking role with regard to feelings, and that's primarily geared towards men? I think it's a different state of affairs when it's a man or a woman doing it.

I'm thinking of the cognitive dissonance that a few people have alluded to, a sort of not-my-Nigelness that women have of "All men are potential rapists...except my husband, my dear old dad and all of my lovely male friends"? We have to believe that we're surrounded by good men (whether it's true or not), because we'd go stark staring mad if we thought otherwise, and then we'd do what the women-hating trolls on this forum suggest and give up on men entirely, as that would definitely be the logical thing to do.

So we hold the two viewpoints simultaneously - men-as-a-class, and men-in-my-life and we're always precariously balanced between the two. Then when someone hits the right guilt switch, we knee jerk into "not all men" as a kind of guilt reflex to thinking horrid thoughts about our Nigels. But we don't spring into action in the same way when women-as-a-class are traduced, because it doesn't trigger the same cognitive dissonance. I think the contexts in which I would say it are different - it's obvious that not all women are bad drivers, or obsessed with shoes, because I'm one and I'm not, so it's just a bonkers thing to say, and needs no further thought. There's just no need to NAWALT, because duh.

For men, I';d have to guess at the thought process, but it must go something along the lines of "I'm a decent bloke and you're hurting my feelings when you say mean things about men, and I need you to know that my feelings are important". They don't feel the urge to defend women's honour in the same way I think, because it's not casting aspersions on them. And also, shut up women, don't name the problem etc etc.

Interesting question, though. I've not thought about it before, but I've enjoyed thinking it through.

Good post, prawn.

I can't speak for the women of mumsnet but all the women I know who NAMALT in real life have husbands / sons who are angry, dictatorial, maybe they've experienced male violence, been raped etc.

In my experience it's a product of cognitive dissonance. Almost an attempt to distance the male violence they've experienced (anger used as a form of control for example) from 'real' violence and 'real' threats.

So man who uses anger as control still falls under NAMALT because he's never actually knifed me. So really he's just a man being manly which is fine and totally different to men who rape and attack women.

If all the men you knew were lovely I'd be surprised if you felt the need to defend them. It would be like not needing to say NAWALT because duh, I'm not like that.

I think it's cognitive dissonance too. Yesterday a guy in my office was telling me about the travails of white men. Because they are more often victims of murder/violence. He was very uncomfortable when I asked him who was doing the murder. Interesting because he equates feminist concerns with being a victim, rather than being oppressed by a particular oppressor.
He did admit men were doing it eventually, but in his mind clearly "other men" which couldn't really be defined.
Similar kind of cognitive dissonance.

I think it's partly the degree of gravity of whatever members of one sex are being accused of. MRAs accuse women of being overly emotional, or illogical. Men, otoh, are responsible for 90% of violent crime and 98% of sex crime. There simply isn't anything that can be proven against women, as a class, that is as serious and unanswerable.

Also typical MRA accusations aren't quantifiable. Women are bitches, make false accusations, etca.. Everything women do that's measurably harmful is far more prevalent among men.

I guess what I'm saying is that there's seldom any real meat in accusations against women as a class, so perhaps men don't much feel the need to spring to our defence.

I'm trying to think of something dreadful that women do as a class. I'm struggling to find an example.

But say there was one.

I don't know if this is the case but let's say that Munchhausen's by proxy is largely a female condition. Let's say that we were suddenly told that there was a significant proportion of women who were doing this. Far greater than anyone had realised and that it was reaching epidermic proportions. A new story in the paper every day.

Whereas I might well feel the need to defend myself by saying I wasn't like that, I think my primary concern would be more along the lines of 'Oh dear God! What on earth is happening? What can we do about it?'

If I heard tell of a newly discovered all female tribe somewhere who routinely carried out violence, my first instinct would be why and how can we stop it?

I think...

Some great posts!
Datun - I'm trying to think now about something women as a class do that's dreadful...I guess it would depend on who you ask, but even wearing very different shoes, I'm only really coming up with nonsense like 'talk too much about their feelings' or 'cry too much'. And yy to 'I might feel the need to defend myself but my primary concern would be 'what on earth is happening? What can we do about it.' I have never met a man who has that response to male violence, though I believe they do exist.

According to MRAs, the "dreadful thing" that women do as a class is a) trap men by becoming pregnant; and / or b) refuse to allow fathers to see their children in the event of a relationship breakdown.

The "dreadful thing" men do as a class is behave in ways that are either irresponsible (such as refusing to use a condom) or abusive (such that a woman is better off raising her children without significant input from their father, despite the well-documented pressures and potential adverse outcomes that can result through being a single parent). But few MRAs acknowledge that men have a role in what is happening, it's all about the nasty man-hating women

NAMALT is a necessary cognitive dissonance for those of us with happy relationships with men, whether that's our partner, our father / brother / uncle / son / nephew / best friend etc. Statistically, of course, given the number of men that I have in my life I know at least one rapist, one DV perpetrator, one emotional / financial abuser... But that thought is hard to reconcile with the lovely people I know, and I feel obliged often to point this out.

BTW, BTL = Below The Line, BLT = a very yummy sandwich

I think the whole NAMALT thing is definitely cognitive dissonance with an unhealthy dash of Stockholm syndrome. Women do not want to understand how much men (as a class, of course) hate them because it's a bloody painful realisation.
And I'm not sure why saying feminism is a specialist subject leads to cries of 'well, that's why women arent feminists'. Women may not want to analyse their place in the world, but it's not because the principles of feminism are too hard to grasp. Women can do specialist subjects in large numbers I believe, much harder ones than basic feminist theory.