[user104658]

Originally Posted by Livia

It's about WOMENS equality. Men have been more than equal for a long time. And women don't need men to lead us on this. But we do need your support.

I honestly don't see how anything else you've said relates to what I said.

Equality is equality, by definition you need more than one component to equalise. "Women's equality" is a meaningless statement... Women's equality to what? Ducks? Bridges? Small single engined light aircraft?

Likewise, "more than equal" doesn't make anything because "more" negates the use of "equal". Have men historically had more than women, have been on the "privileged side" of an imbalance? Yes, there was an entire absense of equality...

I suppose putting it simply; you can't balance an equation that only has one side. Achieving equality will fundamentally involve cooperation... Failure to understand that - insistence on becoming incensed at the very suggestion ("how dare an oppressor try to have an opinion on how this works!!") - is already extremely close to halting progress and slamming it into reverse. I just hope people realise that before it's too late .

I fully support equality for all individuals. I fully accept that there are still many inequalities interwoven into society that affect that equality. But I completely reject the notion that "women en-masse", like some sort of homogenous hive-mind, are better positioned to understand and address those inequalities, than a collective of all individuals working cooperatively to achieve universal equality which would by definition achieve equality for women.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Equality is equality, by definition you need more than one component to equalise. "Women's equality" is a meaningless statement... Women's equality to what? Ducks? Bridges? Small single engined light aircraft?

Likewise, "more than equal" doesn't make anything because "more" negates the use of "equal". Have men historically had more than women, have been on the "privileged side" of an imbalance? Yes, there was an entire absense of equality...

I suppose putting it simply; you can't balance an equation that only has one side. Achieving equality will fundamentally involve cooperation... Failure to understand that - insistence on becoming incensed at the very suggestion ("how dare an oppressor try to have an opinion on how this works!!") - is already extremely close to halting progress and slamming it into reverse. I just hope people realise that before it's too late .

I fully support equality for all individuals. I fully accept that there are still many inequalities interwoven into society that affect that equality. But I completely reject the notion that "women en-masse", like some sort of homogenous hive-mind, are better positioned to understand and address those inequalities, than a collective of all individuals working cooperatively to achieve universal equality which would by definition achieve equality for women.

Oh well, that's your view of feminism. And you've used some fairly colourful language and analogies, there, like:

* slamming it into reverse
They do this on the news.... going in reverse/slamming it into reverse.

*"how dare an oppressor try to have an opinion"
Haven't seen anyone except you say that.

* Achieving equality will fundamentally involve cooperation... Failure to understand that - insistence on becoming incensed at the very suggestion
No one fails to understand what you're claiming to understand. And no one is incensed. But were used to men using that kind of language when lecturing us on how many know just as well as women, what's best for them.

Fact is, we're not all ranting man-haters. But if we argue our opinions of Feminism, there is always a man to make a fuss.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Livia

Oh well, that's your view of feminism. And you've used some fairly colourful language and analogies, there, like:

* slamming it into reverse
They do this on the news.... going in reverse/slamming it into reverse.

*"how dare an oppressor try to have an opinion"
Haven't seen anyone except you say that.

* Achieving equality will fundamentally involve cooperation... Failure to understand that - insistence on becoming incensed at the very suggestion
No one fails to understand what you're claiming to understand. And no one is incensed. But were used to men using that kind of language when lecturing us on how many know just as well as women, what's best for them.

Fact is, we're not all ranting man-haters. But if we argue our opinions of Feminism, there is always a man to make a fuss.

"No one" fails to understand this? I'm not saying that anyone on this thread has, but the claim that "no one" fails to understand and especially that "no one" is incensed and combative is clearly false.

The rest of it, is simply a case of you trying to to dismiss my opinions of this "women's only subject" because I'm male. Which is sexist, divisive and unequal, whether that fits the narrative or not. You're supposedly seeking equality whilst promoting exclusion, it's ridiculous.

[Redway]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

"No one" fails to understand this? I'm not saying that anyone on this thread has, but the claim that "no one" fails to understand and especially that "no one" is incensed and combative is clearly false.

The rest of it, is simply a case of you trying to to dismiss my opinions of this "women's only subject" because I'm male. Which is sexist, divisive and unequal, whether that fits the narrative or not. You're supposedly seeking equality whilst promoting exclusion, it's ridiculous.

ROFL.

Just like when it comes to asking run-of-the-mill white people to know their place when it comes to things they can never fully understand (aka black racism), that’s racist is it? What position are women in to be sexist?

Is there really a power injustice and oppression of straight white men in society for you to accuse a female of being sexist or do you just get high off throwing around silly reverse labels?

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Redway

ROFL.

Just like when it comes to asking run-of-the-mill white people to know their place when it comes to things they can never fully understand (aka black racism), that’s racist is it? What position are women in to be sexist?

Is there really a power injustice and oppression of straight white men in society for you to accuse a female of being sexist or do you just get high off throwing around silly reverse labels?

I have literally no interest in engaging with this, sorry.

[Redway]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I have literally no interest in engaging with this, sorry.

You still found the energy to reply though. Anything that facilitates your sense of white male entitlement.

All of what you’re saying’s like saying black people shouldn’t lead topics about black racism in the same way that white people shouldn’t. You can live in a bubble or drop the affected political correctness and admit that you can’t fully understand what you haven’t experienced on a personal level.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Redway

You still found the energy to reply though. Anything that facilitates your sense of white male privilege.

All of what you’re saying’s like saying black people shouldn’t lead topics about black racism in the same way that white people shouldn’t. You can live in a bubble or drop the affected political correctness and admit that you can’t fully understand what you haven’t experienced on a personal level.

A discussion doesn't need to be lead or dominated to be constructive one between sets of people with varying understanding of the topic. If the only people permitt d to discuss a topic are those who already understand it then there is no need for discussion in the first place.

In your case, however, the issue is more simple;

Any point that you may have is so deeply buried under (not even very passive) aggression, righteous anger, sarcasm and general irrationality that it simply isn't worth engaging with. I'm afraid you might start posting crying-laughing emojis at me. "rofl".

[Northern Monkey]

Originally Posted by Redway

ROFL.

Just like when it comes to asking run-of-the-mill white people to know their place when it comes to things they can never fully understand (aka black racism), that’s racist is it? What position are women in to be sexist?

Is there really a power injustice and oppression of straight white men in society for you to accuse a female of being sexist or do you just get high off throwing around silly reverse labels?

I can already tell by this post that you’re one of the ‘white people can’t experience racism’ or ‘women can’t be sexist’ power,privilege rah rah rah etc etc crew.

[Redway]

Originally Posted by Northern Monkey

I can already tell by this post that you’re one of the ‘white people can’t experience racism’ or ‘women can’t be sexist’ power,privilege rah rah rah etc etc crew.

Not on as deep a scale. Unless you’re talking about Jews and then I’d agree. Definitely not Western Europeans.

[Maru]

Originally Posted by Vicky

Very well said Livia.

Of course male allys is a good thing. But men trying to basically...take over and tell women they are doing feminism wrong, well...thats a bit not good.

And so many men cannot help but dominate a conversation. Its socialized into them. Thats not an insult as socialization is extremely hard to fight (I have tried and failed many many times) so men being socialized to dominate and be strong, while women are socialized to be 'nice' and put others first..well its not a good combination is it...

Vicky, I will use your post as an example for my thoughts.

@Red This is a stereotype.

Ok, now apply this to a "protected group"... this conversation would be a non-starter obviously, but we're "socialized" to disregard bias against men, particularly white men.

This is why I said I think using labels and groups is going backwards. It's going backwards on decades of growth in individualism, which I would argue is what ushered the modern era and our strides in equality. When see each other as individuals, this is progress... when start to see each other as labels and as members of a group, then that is going backwards, back to group think and tribalism.

When we inherit groupthink, it is automatically tribal from the outset, whereas with the individual, we are not accountable to a group, we are accountable to ourselves. Which means the payment for failure is quite low for groups, but much higher for an individual and more personally felt.

If the group fails to account for it's own biases or an individual misbehaves, the group won't really flench unless it threatens it's hierarchy and continues on it's own way. So as long as the individual stays well within the group's philosophy and don't do anything stupid like "betray" the group then they will share the same protective ward of the rest of the group.

If the individual misbehaves on it's own, it's not empowered by the group, so no sense of immunity there, and therefore, much less likely to act out in a way that would face consequences for any sort of bigotry. (we see this on BB on every season)

This is why we've come as far as we have, because while there has always been a "community" in a much larger but looser sense of the term, the focus has been on the individual and we were not engaging in "group". Movements like these work waaaaay better when they enable individuals to speak for themselves, but not speak for them.

When we break ourselves into up into little groups, all we're doing is reusing the same exact weapons that created bias, in-equal treatment and prejudice throughout history. And those weapons are poisoned.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

"No one" fails to understand this? I'm not saying that anyone on this thread has, but the claim that "no one" fails to understand and especially that "no one" is incensed and combative is clearly false.

The rest of it, is simply a case of you trying to to dismiss my opinions of this "women's only subject" because I'm male. Which is sexist, divisive and unequal, whether that fits the narrative or not. You're supposedly seeking equality whilst promoting exclusion, it's ridiculous.

You posted the term "fails to understand", I quoted it. I mean people discussing this here and now, the people involved in this discussion, the other people, and myself, reading your posts.

How many times have I, and other women on here said that we are not against men, we don't want them excluded, of course we need them as allies in this... but we don't need them to dictate the debate. I don't see what's sexist or divisive about that.

[Underscore]

Originally Posted by Livia

How many times have I, and other women on here said that we are not against men, we don't want them excluded, of course we need them as allies in this... but we don't need them to dictate the debate. I don't see what's sexist or divisive about that.

As a male radical feminist, I absolutely agree which is why even though I'd love to be involved in something like the Women's Equality Party I wouldn't be.

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Underscore

As a male radical feminist, I absolutely agree which is why even though I'd love to be involved in something like the Women's Equality Party I wouldn't be.

The WEP are an utter joke tbh. They refuse to even define the word 'woman'. Its impossible to fight for the rights of women without being able to say what a bloody woman is If you refuse to see sex, you cannot see sexism.

It gives me a bit of rage tbh, such a great premise but...fell flat almost instantly.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Livia

You posted the term "fails to understand", I quoted it. I mean people discussing this here and now, the people involved in this discussion, the other people, and myself, reading your posts.

How many times have I, and other women on here said that we are not against men, we don't want them excluded, of course we need them as allies in this... but we don't need them to dictate the debate. I don't see what's sexist or divisive about that.

Well no, but initially the suggestion seemed to be that it should be the alternative (women leading the debate) which is where I disagree, and disagree on a completely fundamental level because I don't personally believe that debates should ever be lead at all. As soon as a debate is lead or restricted in any way it stops being a debate and becomes a soap box. I can fully appreciate that there were probably agenda-driven men trying to shift the conversation for selfish reasons. But I also appreciate that a cause - any cause - can easily be hijacked and wrecked by what some might call extremists... Though I would suggest the opposite. Often they are hijacked by "casuals" who have zero complex understanding of any issue, are not focused on progress, and simply see a "fight to be won"... And I'm sad from convinced that these days those people are in the minority. That certainly doesn't just apply to feminism, but it does apply.

There's a rhetoric that goes around that's just false... To put it in an extreme way... The suggestion that Average Jane necessarily understands more about feminism than an experienced male sociologist is just nonsense. Likewise; suggesting that Bob Next Door necessarily understands more about male mental health issues than an experienced female psychiatrist. And a whole spectrum in-between.

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Well no, but initially the suggestion seemed to be that it should be the alternative (women leading the debate) which is where I disagree, and disagree on a completely fundamental level because I don't personally believe that debates should ever be lead at all. As soon as a debate is lead or restricted in any way it stops being a debate and becomes a soap box. I can fully appreciate that there were probably agenda-driven men trying to shift the conversation for selfish reasons. But I also appreciate that a cause - any cause - can easily be hijacked and wrecked by what some might call extremists... Though I would suggest the opposite. Often they are hijacked by "casuals" who have zero complex understanding of any issue, are not focused on progress, and simply see a "fight to be won"... And I'm sad from convinced that these days those people are in the minority. That certainly doesn't just apply to feminism, but it does apply.

There's a rhetoric that goes around that's just false... To put it in an extreme way... The suggestion that Average Jane necessarily understands more about feminism than an experienced male sociologist is just nonsense. Likewise; suggesting that Bob Next Door necessarily understands more about male mental health issues than an experienced female psychiatrist. And a whole spectrum in-between.

Intellectual snobbery which in itself is discrimination.

So-called experienced sociologists and psychiatrists often get it wrong which is why so many get let out when still dangerous and go to kill people. Personal experience, instinct and intuition is every bit as valuable as reading books and following policies and procedures.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

Intellectual snobbery which in itself is discrimination.

So-called experienced sociologists and psychiatrists often get it wrong which is why so many get let out when still dangerous and go to kill people. Personal experience, instinct and intuition is every bit as valuable as reading books and following policies and procedures.

I was careful to say "necessarily", Brillo, I'm far from an intellectual snob (I didn't finish my degree and I'm in retail management ffs) but my point is that saying that ALL (of any group) is going to know more about something than ALL (of any other group) is wrong... And therefore, excluding all of any group from a discussion on any topic is also wrong.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Well no, but initially the suggestion seemed to be that it should be the alternative (women leading the debate) which is where I disagree, and disagree on a completely fundamental level because I don't personally believe that debates should ever be lead at all. As soon as a debate is lead or restricted in any way it stops being a debate and becomes a soap box. I can fully appreciate that there were probably agenda-driven men trying to shift the conversation for selfish reasons. But I also appreciate that a cause - any cause - can easily be hijacked and wrecked by what some might call extremists... Though I would suggest the opposite. Often they are hijacked by "casuals" who have zero complex understanding of any issue, are not focused on progress, and simply see a "fight to be won"... And I'm sad from convinced that these days those people are in the minority. That certainly doesn't just apply to feminism, but it does apply.

There's a rhetoric that goes around that's just false... To put it in an extreme way... The suggestion that Average Jane necessarily understands more about feminism than an experienced male sociologist is just nonsense. Likewise; suggesting that Bob Next Door necessarily understands more about male mental health issues than an experienced female psychiatrist. And a whole spectrum in-between.

Yes a male sociologist may know more about feminism that Average Jane, but I’m not sure that he'd know more than sociologist Jane, And if he was that experienced, he would expect to (I’m not going to say lead the debate, more) set the agenda. Wouldn’t he feel that there would be enough female sociologists just as qualified?

Men have set all the agenda for so long now, and we’re only really at the very beginning of the rise to real equality. So I’m disappointed that men want to be setting this agenda too, and if a woman doesn’t agree, then she’s being divisive and sexist.