[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.