Want to talk

[UpForDiscussi0n]

Full transparacy, I am not a mother nor a woman. English is not my first language so exuse any misshap. I only made this account to be able to talk to a feminist first-hand to be able to see their view-points. I am myself not a feminist as i don't belive that the feminism in today's society promotes equality on some levels. I have also read several news outlets such as bussfeed and the huffington post but find them to be (as i said, bad english so don't really know how to put it) downlooking towards myself as a man. Would love to hear people out and debate or discuss feministic issues, have a good day.

I know a bit about class analysis Quentin and I don't really like it. Marx had a lot of good things to say but his class politics were crude, reductive and vulgar. Imo.

What class analysis is not: the claim that all members of a given class have more power/influence/money than all people outwith that class.

What it is about (grossly oversimplified): considered as a whole, on average members of class A will have more power than class B.

So, on average white middle class university educated men will earn more than white middle class university educated women. The existence of one university-educated formerly middle class man now living in a cardboard box under a railway arch, or the existence of a high-flying woman CEO in the top 1% of earners does not make that statement about averages untrue.

While white middle class women may earn more on average than black working class men, the latter will on average earn more than black working class women. Again, a statement about averages.

90% of incarcerated violent offenders and 98% of incarcerated sex offenders are male. While clearly not all men are violent, men are as a class (i.e on average, thought of as an aggregate) more violent than women.

You can't turn round and say "class analysis means [something it clearly doesn't] therefore class analysis is rubbish." That takes you into Humpty Dumpty territory.

I thought that, too Quentin.

Also, user, on a feminist board, feminists generally find talking about feminist issues, or general issues from a feminist perspective interesting. Generally, we find debating the legitimacy of feminism as a concept less interesting, because that is what the rest of the internet is for. For all their brevity, your posts definitely seem to fall into the the latter category.

" What I have a problem with is the way these kind of discussions promote the notion that men as a class oppress women as a class. I'm saying I disagree with that. Can that disagreement be accommodated here or not?"

I don't know. Tell me why you have a problem with it and we can have a conversation.

Back to the OP - I was a bit about engaging as it just seems to feed the trolling, but in this instance it's been a veritable mistressful (for want of a better word) lesson in how to deal with such people: politely expose their arguments for the inadquate piffle they are until they lose their temper and show their true colours (as abusive woman haters).

I thought that, too Quentin.

It's only because you're part of the echo chamber too though

A teenage boy in Sweden asking feminists on mumsnet to explain feminism is not going to get the education he says he wants.

Explaining 150 years of feminism to a boy who has little to no clue is a ridiculous ask.

The topic is too big, too complicated and has too much nuance. Hence suggestions of reading lists etc.

It also gets very tiresome. Because it happens all the time.

If I wanted to find out about something, I would read about it. I wouldn't go and ask proponents of it to explain it to me in a heartbeat. It's lazy. And it doesn't say much for their motivation.

And it always ends predictably. They don't want an explanation, they want justification for their current bias.

more men than women are unemployed. "Why is this feminism's problem?" you say.

Ah interesting you bring this up. In feminist Sweden, where OP is from, the unemployment rates for men and women are 8% and 7% respectively. Not a massive difference. Thanks, feminism!

ECHO ECHo ECho Echo echoooooooooo

So, on average white middle class university educated men will earn more than white middle class university educated women. The existence of one university-educated formerly middle class man now living in a cardboard box under a railway arch, or the existence of a high-flying woman CEO in the top 1% of earners does not make that statement about averages untrue.

Ok, fair point. If you're identifying 'white, middle class, university educated men' as a class (conflating maleness, access to higher education and socioeconomic background) then yes, on average, that class does have more of what you could call power in certain contexts like politics, tech and finance. However, if you're identifying men (or anyone else) as a class independent of socioeconomic background and education etc then you run into problems. In short, the more intersectional descriptors you use to refine your class, the more sense it makes as a category within a system of power.

The problem is, that's not what identity politics is about. Often, the 'educated' and 'middle-class' conditions are absent in that kind of analysis and you're left with 'men as a class have power'. Which as a statement is useless and divisive.

Uh, identity politics and class analysis are not the same thing. In fact, arguably they are the opposite of one another.

Men do have more power as a class than women do. And within each subdivision-however you choose to divide it up - men have more power than the women. So while educated middle class women may have more power than uneducated working class men, they have less power than educated middle class men.

And class analysis and identity politics are not the same thing.

Can I throw another question out there: what is power? We talk endlessly about power and how some people have got so much more of it than others. But what is it really? Is it having more money? Is it having a position of superiority in the workplace? Is it a feeling of being powerful independent of how much money or social status you have? Is it having power over others or yourself? Is it the power to good, or do evil? What sort of power do you want?

And is the goal to turn the tables by taking power away from the powerful group and giving it to the non powerful group? Or is it to get rid of power altogether so we're all equal? But in the later instance, none of us would have power - because power only makes sense when defined against people who don't have power. If we're all equal then none of us have power.

And class analysis and identity politics are not the same thing.

No, but they've become the same thing.

How else do you understand patriarchy other than men as a class oppressing women as a class? Individual and anecdotal relationships like the loving and supportive one I have with my DP doesn't negate systematic female disadvantage and oppression.

"No, but they've become the same thing."

Good Lord, have they? You must know some very ignorant people!

ID politics is a classification of people into sociocultural groups.

No, identity politics is the claim that one's self-professed, internally felt identity trumps all other considerations.

regrouted my understanding of patriarchy is that it is at root an economic system.

To expand, for centuries women were understood as property in economic systems that required them to be in the family home, taking care of children and doing the housework, while all the men exercised their function of carrying out manual labour.

However, the system is changing. There isn't much manual labour and capitalism doesn't want women at home: it wants them out there earning and consuming. So it's kind of got all weird and very complicated. The commodification of women has been relocated from the home to the online sex industries and other of body commercialisation.

I don't think patriarchy is a matter of men as a class going around oppressing women (although some of them do) so much as dynamic, shifting system that defines the relationships between men and women in economic terms.

The only person who's mentioned power is you user so I would rather not discuss it if it's all the same to you.
Women are disadvantaged compared to men on the basis of their biology. This happens globally and across class, social and racial boundaries.
(Some) men do suffer (some) disadvantages but as discussed elsewhere these are usually down patriarchal views of gendered roles rather than feminism. Feminism is a cure to mens problems, not a cause. But for it to work, men need to put some effort into helping solves womens problems.

The commodification of women has been relocated from the home to the online sex industries and other of body commercialisation.

Fucking hell. Ugh. We are people you know, not commodities.

Fucking hell. Ugh. We are people you know, not commodities.

Jesus - when did I suggest otherwise?? I wasn't suggesting this is a good thing.

Women are disadvantaged compared to men on the basis of their biology.

So what do you do about that? Genuine question.