[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.

[Urban Cragou]

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.