Class analysis...

[BertrandRussell]

Why do people find it so difficult? Am I being too simplistic and missing something?
White people as a class have more power than black people as a class.. Men as a class are more violent than women as a class. Is there anything controversial there?

If I stay silent when someone makes a racist or disablist comment, then I am complicit.

You keep labouring a point that no one has made. You are responsible for your own actions. Your actions including your silence if you had a chance to speak out.

I know nothing about Latino gangs. But I certainly expect individual Muslims to take a stand against extremism. And individual Catholics to take a stand against child abuse within the church.

It's an interesting point of view, but one I'm frankly surprised to read on here - it brings you into closer contact with the attitudes of Trump, Farage, and Katie Hopkins than you may be comfortable with.

Bertrand was saying collective responsibility for tackling class issues naturally flows from class analysis

It’s the collective responsibility bit I’m confused by. Bertrand has talked about “if men (as a class) acted”

I have no idea what this means. Sounds like they have a hive mind, which is clearly not what is meant.

Now someone, or a group of people starting a movement. That taking on momentum and making a difference I can understand.

But this working as a class, I don’t get it.

Ok, so although men as a class do most violence AND men as a class have most power, so most ability to change things, men can't be expected to try to change things as its discriminatory to expect them to.
We are fucked then.

Trump is not doing class analysis.
Trump is doing class stereotypes.

There is no data to suggest Mexicans are criminals and rapists, or white anericans are "true americans". So it isnt analysis.

There is however ample evidence that men commit most violence and sexual violence.

Stereotyping vs class analysis

So gross generalisations against huge groups of people are OK as long as there is evidence to support them? That's not the way political discourse has developed over the last few decades, certainly on the left, so it's a novel point of view, at least.

But when you take the further step of saying that law-abiding men are responsible for their criminal fellows, then all you are doing is creating another system of oppression/discrimination based on class, just focussed on different targets.

Your logic is flawed. What is being asked of men is to stand up and by their behaviour, ostracise and condemn those who do wrong - not condone their behaviour as so often happens. There's a lot of deliberate misunderstanding taking place on here. It is not rocket science to most - what is you don't understand about enabling male violence by saying and doing nothing to those who mistreat women and children - whether criminally or not. Is morality and a moral compass not a part of your lives?

The concept of collective responsibility is not an example of discrimination.

Of course it is. If one single woman makes a false assault accusation, the media will often generalise that to "women [as a class] lie about assault", thus unjustly inflicting responsibility for the crime of an individual upon their class. How is that not a form of discrimination?!

I'm tempted to get all Bayesian on this one. So, the probability that a rapist or sexual offender is male is quite ridiculously high. We know the difference though between conditional probabilities that go one way as opposed to the other (thankyou Revd Bayes). So we do know the difference between the probability that a rapist is male, and the probability that a man is a rapist. Two different conditional probabilities. But those who get all NAMALT at this are missing the relevant comparison here, in that they are thinking about just the class of men (and possibly themselves as a part of that class). Rather than the class of all adults. So, for a woman or girl walking down the street, and spotting someone walking behind them, it makes perfect sense from a probabilistic point of view to be wary of a man walking behind her, as compared to a woman. Because of the indicators available to her, knowing someone is male increases the risk enormously compared to knowing someone is female. That is the comparison we make all day and almost everyday, and it is statistically valid.
I wish Mumsnet could do LaTeX..............Must be Friday...........

Because unless you are happy with the power that comes from being in the privileged class (and yes nobody is just one class) or you are individualistic and therefore are opposed to collectivism ideologically or you think it’s a nice idea in theory but you don’t actually identify many of the things as part of your life, having accepted that discrimination/oppression is class based when you say something like ‘racism is wrong’, you will naturally be motivated to change your behaviour.

Just saying ‘racism is wrong’ inherently involves acceptance of the validity of the class analysis AND that something should be done about it.

Different people have different feelings about how their behaviour should change.

Because unless you are happy with the power that comes from being in the privileged class (and yes nobody is just one class) or you are individualistic and therefore are opposed to collectivism ideologically or you think it’s a nice idea in theory but you don’t actually identify many of the things as part of your life, having accepted that discrimination/oppression is class based when you say something like ‘racism is wrong’, you will naturally be motivated to change your behaviour.

Definitely opposed to collectivism ideologically - you won't catch me down the tractor farm any time soon. I think you probably put your finger on one of the main reasons why many people, including me, instinctively recoil from this form of analysis. Well, apart from my belief that using class-analysis to perpetrate discrimination is both hypocritical and counter-productive, since it invalidates the moral basis for criticizing discrimination as wrong in principle.

Just saying ‘racism is wrong’ inherently involves acceptance of the validity of the class analysis AND that something should be done about it

So when my 4 year old said “thats wrong mummy” when we talked about someone being mean to his friend, because is skin is a different colour? That was my son conducting class analysis. I always said that kid was a genius.

The media do that do they? Or is it MRA commenters on the bottom of online articles?

That’s an example of cultural sexism re the belief that ‘women lie and manipulate men’ hence one woman becomes ‘all women’.

It is in no way comparable (it is the reverse actually) to the fact that men are overwhelmingly responsible for the vast majority of violence across the globe and people popping up like whack-a-mole saying ‘but NAMALT’

If men overwhelmingly suffer from a preventable disease people don’t pop up saying ‘but NAMALT’ do they? When we know from stats that men suffer more accidental deaths at work but nobody pops up saying ‘but NAMALT’ do they?

There is a reason why people say NAMALT to certain things but not others...

Not necessarily. Was the wrong racism? Did your son say ‘that’s racist!’ Or did he say ‘that’s wrong!’?

Things can be identified as wrong without them being seen as racism. Seeing them as racism is the class analysis because the reason why it is wrong is because it’s prejudice against a whole group of people.

"But this working as a class, I don’t get it."
Once again I have not made myself clear. I believe that there is much that men as individuals can-and should- do to change the behaviour of other individual men. Which will improve society as a whole.

Not necessarily. Was the wrong racism? Did your son say ‘that’s racist!’ Or did he say ‘that’s wrong

My sons 4. He said that’s wrong. Child A said something nasty to child B. I got a 4 year olds version but it was something like “they said child B shouldn’t be here”

Basically my point is a 4 year old can get their head round racism but they have no capacity to conduct class analysis.

I think you are being a little broad with the definition of what class analysis is. It suggests to me something a little more broad than “treating someone differently because of X is wrong” - oh look I just did class analysis.

No, your child, if he hasn’t understood racism can get his head around person a saying something mean to person b.

Once again I have not made myself clear. I believe that there is much that men as individuals can-and should- do to change the behaviour of other individual men. Which will improve society as a whole

But that’s individual behaviour (impacting others).

I don’t think that’s a child thing TBH. There are plenty of adults who can get their heads around person a saying something mean to person b without understanding ‘isms’.

Yes, based on an idea of collective responsibility. If someone believes only in individual responsibility they would never consider someone else’s behaviour/words as anything to do with them.

No, your child, if he hasn’t understood racism can get his head around person a saying something mean to person b

He understood the motivation. That this mean thing was said because of the colour of his friends skin. I’m not saying my four year old fully understand racism. But he understood that act.

My seven year old has a much better grasp. She’s not capable of class analysis either.

Thing is MRAs seem to apply collective responsibility to women as a group whilst believing that men have only individual responsibility.

Well then yes, I would say they both understand the principles of class analysis. They might not fully understand it but they have a level of understanding there don’t they?

Thing is MRAs seem to apply collective responsibility to women as a group whilst believing that men have only individual responsibility.

Thereby showing themselves hypocrites and wrong in principle. But to act as a mirror image of the MRAs is no less hypocritical or lacking in principle.