[Livia]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Have the women who are part of the discussion today been oppressed by the men who are part of the discussion today for millenia? This part always confuses me; this idea that "women" and "men" are some sort of cohesive sentient entity with a memory stretching back beyond the lifespan of the individual. It doesn't really make sense.

That's not to say the millenia of oppression doesn't still affect society today; it does in many ways and that's something that society as a whole needs to address. But the fact is, many (most) of the men who are part of the discussion today have never oppressed anyone in any way, and so the idea that they should be excluded from the discussion of achieving equality is ludicrous and entirely misses the point. Of course men shouldn't lead or dominate the discussion, but nor should women lead or dominate the discussion... And anyone who thinks they should, frankly, is not seeking equality.

Well... firstly, no, they were not the same men that have oppressed women over millennia. In much the same way that Britain is no longer an Empire, oppressing other countries but we're constantly reminded of our input... You only have to have a glance through Serious Debates to know that Britain is STILL accused of all kinds of stuff that happened before any of us was born... what we did in the Raj... what we did in Africa.... etc. etc. I don't see how it's different, really. People IN those countries don't want British people involved in affairs affecting their country. And in much the same way, although the men alive now have not oppressed women over millennia, I for one don't want men to be leading a discussion about feminism.

Of course, that doesn't mean I think men should not be involved in the discussion. We need men on board... but this is about women. And while most men are very supportive and thoughtful... you've only got to look at some of the aggression that surfaces, from some men, whenever there's a discussion about feminism and women's rights.

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Livia

Well... firstly, no, they were not the same men that have oppressed women over millennia. In much the same way that Britain is no longer an Empire, oppressing other countries but we're constantly reminded of our input... You only have to have a glance through Serious Debates to know that Britain is STILL accused of all kinds of stuff that happened before any of us was born... what we did in the Raj... what we did in Africa.... etc. etc. I don't see how it's different, really. People IN those countries don't want British people involved in affairs affecting their country. And in much the same way, although the men alive now have not oppressed women over millennia, I for one don't want men to be leading a discussion about feminism.

Of course, that doesn't mean I think men should not be involved in the discussion. We need men on board... but this is about women. And while most men are very supportive and thoughtful... you've only got to look at some of the aggression that surfaces, from some men, whenever there's a discussion about feminism and women's rights.

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...

[Livia]

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...

I have another theory, and I know this will be a bit unpopular and it is slightly off-topic, but here goes...

Whenever I've met a transsexual person, or see them on TV, I've been struck by how much less dramatic and loud the female to male transsexuals are. You really don't see them in the press, demanding their rights, crying "I'm a REAL man!". Male to female transsexuals, however, have been men all their lives and they are used to standing up and saying, right, this is what I think and you're going to listen.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Livia

I have another theory, and I know this will be a bit unpopular and it is slightly off-topic, but here goes...

Whenever I've met a transsexual person, or see them on TV, I've been struck by how much less dramatic and loud the female to male transsexuals are. You really don't see them in the press, demanding their rights, crying "I'm a REAL man!". Male to female transsexuals, however, have been men all their lives and they are used to standing up and saying, right, this is what I think and you're going to listen.

Which isn't a bad thing at all of course but young girls should be socialised the same way to feel like their voice is important

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Which isn't a bad thing at all of course but young girls should be socialised the same way to feel like their voice is important

Yes, absolutely they should.

[smudgie]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Which isn't a bad thing at all of course but young girls should be socialised the same way to feel like their voice is important

You have hit the nail on the head Niamh.

My mother was an absolute nightmare, but she would never be dictated to, by any man (or woman for that matter), we were all brought up in the same stance.
Respect authority but remember you are everyone's equal.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by smudgie

You have hit the nail on the head Niamh.

My mother was an absolute nightmare, but she would never be dictated to, by any man (or woman for that matter), we were all brought up in the same stance.
Respect authority but remember you are everyone's equal.

I think for me, having 3 brothers and being the only girl helped with this, I'd be damned if I was going to allow myself to be treated differently to them

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Livia

I have another theory, and I know this will be a bit unpopular and it is slightly off-topic, but here goes...

Whenever I've met a transsexual person, or see them on TV, I've been struck by how much less dramatic and loud the female to male transsexuals are. You really don't see them in the press, demanding their rights, crying "I'm a REAL man!". Male to female transsexuals, however, have been men all their lives and they are used to standing up and saying, right, this is what I think and you're going to listen.

Yes. I have said this for a very long time now. The socialization is so obvious. You do not see transmen demanding entry into male areas, you see no transmen winning awards and such...transmen are basically invisible whilst transwomen are at the forefront screaming about unfairness and demanding everyone else buy into their religion.

Actually a bulk of transactivism comes across extremely MRA like to me too. And MRA types like to attach themselves to transactivism for obvious reasons. If it becomes law that any man is a woman, then thats all womens rights gone in one swoop. Part of the reason I am so against it. I kind of see a lot of transactivism as a fightback against women getting more equal. Its backlash, and the MRAs love it. Obviously not all transactivists are MRAs, but there is so much crossover its impossible to ignore.

Look...once I saw it I could not unsee it tbh

Spoiler:

Not all transactivists are like that obviously, but a hell of a lot are. These tend to be the same ones who believe in 'lady penis' and don't actually alter their bodies in any way, the ones who say that sex dysphoria is not needed to be trans...the more mental ones. They come across exactly like MRAs to me. Seems that some men have found a way to pushback against women getting equal. And its genius really..to attach yourself to a group of people who do generally require support and understanding.

I first started to think along these lines when a member here, thetruth, was adamant that in a story about the 'first female on the frontline' (which was a male...who had completed training as a male then suddenly decided they were actually a woman. At this time, women could not actually serve o n the frontline as the training to allow them to was still underway) the person was absolutely a woman. It rang alarm bells for me. And since, its cemented even more.

Theres also the bastardization of the word 'intersectional' and the constant demands to centre transwomen in feminism. Its demanding that male people be centred in feminism. Really.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

Yes. I have said this for a very long time now. The socialization is so obvious. You do not see transmen demanding entry into male areas, you see no transmen winning awards and such...transmen are basically invisible whilst transwomen are at the forefront screaming about unfairness and demanding everyone else buy into their religion.

Actually a bulk of transactivism comes across extremely MRA like to me too. And MRA types like to attach themselves to transactivism for obvious reasons. If it becomes law that any man is a woman, then thats all womens rights gone in one swoop. Part of the reason I am so against it. I kind of see a lot of transactivism as a fightback against women getting more equal. Its backlash, and the MRAs love it. Obviously not all transactivists are MRAs, but there is so much crossover its impossible to ignore.

Look...once I saw it I could not unsee it tbh

Spoiler:

Not all transactivists are like that obviously, but a hell of a lot are. These tend to be the same ones who believe in 'lady penis' and don't actually alter their bodies in any way, the ones who say that sex dysphoria is not needed to be trans...the more mental ones. They come across exactly like MRAs to me. Seems that some men have found a way to pushback against women getting equal. And its genius really..to attach yourself to a group of people who do generally require support and understanding.

I first started to think along these lines when a member here, thetruth, was adamant that in a story about the 'first female on the frontline' (which was a male...who had completed training as a male then suddenly decided they were actually a woman. At this time, women could not actually serve o n the frontline as the training to allow them to was still underway) the person was absolutely a woman. It rang alarm bells for me. And since, its cemented even more.

Thanks Vicky, now I can never unsee that either LOL...

I'm in total agreement with you on this issue. And yes, the last paragraph... how are women supposed to react to someone who's always been a man, still has a penis, decides he's now a woman and hey presto! He's suddenly declared the first woman on the Front Line. Meanwhile born women are still jumping through the hoops that men have set up, in order to even try to get as far as the front line.

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Livia

Thanks Vicky, now I can never unsee that either LOL...

I'm in total agreement with you on this issue. And yes, the last paragraph... how are women supposed to react to someone who's always been a man, still has a penis, decides he's now a woman and hey presto! He's suddenly declared the first woman on the Front Line. Meanwhile born women are still jumping through the hoops that men have set up, in order to even try to get as far as the front line.

Ridiculous is not a strong enough word. Men and women really need to be analysing why this is so rather than just listening to those that shout the loudest.

It seems to me that women are being discriminated against not only by straight men but transwomen too. Beyond reasoning.

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Livia

I have another theory, and I know this will be a bit unpopular and it is slightly off-topic, but here goes...

Whenever I've met a transsexual person, or see them on TV, I've been struck by how much less dramatic and loud the female to male transsexuals are. You really don't see them in the press, demanding their rights, crying "I'm a REAL man!". Male to female transsexuals, however, have been men all their lives and they are used to standing up and saying, right, this is what I think and you're going to listen.

A very good point.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Livia

Well... firstly, no, they were not the same men that have oppressed women over millennia. In much the same way that Britain is no longer an Empire, oppressing other countries but we're constantly reminded of our input... You only have to have a glance through Serious Debates to know that Britain is STILL accused of all kinds of stuff that happened before any of us was born... what we did in the Raj... what we did in Africa.... etc. etc. I don't see how it's different, really. People IN those countries don't want British people involved in affairs affecting their country. And in much the same way, although the men alive now have not oppressed women over millennia, I for one don't want men to be leading a discussion about feminism.

Of course, that doesn't mean I think men should not be involved in the discussion. We need men on board... but this is about women. And while most men are very supportive and thoughtful... you've only got to look at some of the aggression that surfaces, from some men, whenever there's a discussion about feminism and women's rights.

But it isn't about women, it's about equality, and stating that the pursuit of (any) equality is only about the historically disadvantaged side "of the scales" has more to do with addressing "past injury" than it does with achieving future equality. "An eye for an eye", "its our turn now and we can only have equality after we've had our turn" -type equality isn't the type of equality that anyone should be seeking... It isn't equality at all. I mean sure, acknowledge and address the fact that people have "lost eyes" in the past, acknowledge that it's wrong and regrettable, and then have everyone move forward together, progressively, to ensure that it doesn't continue happening. It's literally the only way things are going to improve... But, it so often seems to me that many people are far more concerned with having past grievances acknowledged than they are with preventing future grievances, and even at the EXPENSE of progress. "We have the right to be angry and hold grudges even if that anger makes things worse".

It makes me question the entire motive.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

But it isn't about women, it's about equality, and stating that the pursuit of (any) equality is only about the historically disadvantaged side "of the scales" has more to do with addressing "past injury" than it does with achieving future equality. "An eye for an eye", "its our turn now and we can only have equality after we've had our turn" -type equality isn't the type of equality that anyone should be seeking... It isn't equality at all. I mean sure, acknowledge and address the fact that people have "lost eyes" in the past, acknowledge that it's wrong and regrettable, and then have everyone move forward together, progressively, to ensure that it doesn't continue happening. It's literally the only way things are going to improve... But, it so often seems to me that many people are far more concerned with having past grievances acknowledged than they are with preventing future grievances, and even at the EXPENSE of progress. "We have the right to be angry and hold grudges even if that anger makes things worse".

It makes me question the entire motive.

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.

[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?

[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.