Differing reactions to men & women getting abused

[Narz]

Not at all. I happily betray my class in the interests of the oppressed.

Unlike you I don't identity with my "class". I am a human being & see men, women, any "races" as brothers & sisters & judge people based on behavior.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

1) Your OP didn't ask us a question. Do you even realize that? You simply offered us from the outset what was to be the proper explanatory paradigm for the event.

Yes I realized that fault.

2) You asked your first respondent why he bothered posting.

Because he posted inane nonsense, and repeated parts of my post as if they were his own conclusions to be used against me.

3) In post 39, I proposed that part of the problem (already developing) might be differing definitions of "men's rights" (This is at the root of a lot of these fruitless threads, and I'm going to spell it out more later). You give no evidence of having entertained that possibility. I also pointed out that the killer seems as resentful of men who get women as he is of women.

4) Post 56 points out that the shooter's sense of entitlement long predates an age where gender issues would have been any concern for him.

5) In post 80, Oruc pointed out that the shooter resented someone else (a man) for winning the lottery. The killer's entitlement is certainly not limited to gender issues.

6) No response to any of these other possible explanations for the shooting. See point 1. You pride yourself on having been a good listener to feminists. But you're not a good listener here, Cheezy.

7) As late as post 105, you claimed that the killer killed "a bunch of women." Without wanting to be disrespectful to the two women who were killed and their families and friends, two is not generally a "bunch." Four men were killed; five if we include the killer himself. I don't think you were even bothering to listen to the news report about the incident itself!

Alright look. I'm not obliged to answer every single post that responds to one of mine, especially when all of them are taking apart my stuff line by line. It gets exhausting. So I'm sorry if I didn't reply to every little bit that you think I should have. Y'all wanted evidence of dogpiling a few days ago, well there it was.

What you need to realize is that I engage with this stuff a lot more than probably any of you do. The arguments being put forth about "it's not gender bias because it affected men too," "he had other forms of entitlement so therefore it wasn't misogyny," etc etc, they're all common red herrings that men throw out whenever issues of misogyny and patriarchy come up, in order to redirect the discussion away from misogyny and patriarchy. Again, I don't have the physical capacity to answer every single thing every person says, and explain why they are mistaken about whatever they're mistaken about. If I did, then I could explain how patriarchy comes back to hurt men too [oh wait I did that, and it was dismissed because reasons], how multiple forms of social hierarchy reinforce each other like race and gender [oh wait I did that, and it was ignored], and how Autism and Asperger's are not mental illnesses that make people crazy [I admittedly dropped the ball on that one, I figured the many Asperger's people here would pick that one up and run with it, and by the time we were waist-deep in nonsense, it got lost].

And lastly, you're right, I don't give an ear to "men's rights" any more than I give an ear to "White rights." Men's rights already exist. It's called patriarchy. We need less men's rights, not more. There's nothing for men to protect. Men protecting their rights is just like whites protecting their rights in the face of the expansion minority rights. Men are the oppressor. Men's Rights Activists and their ilk are the equivalent to White Power activists and people who think Affirmative Action is "reverse racism."

Unlike you I don't identity with my "class". I am a human being & see men, women, any "races" as brothers & sisters & judge people based on behavior.

Just because you are not interested in politics does not mean politics is not interested in you. You have a class whether you like it or not. Ignoring that is complacency to it.

You're missing the point, I think.

If your central position is that white males' views count for nothing, then your own view, as a white male, counts for nothing.

This is self-defeating. You cannot escape having a view as a white male. Or do you think you can?

I didn't say that, that's why you think my argument makes no sense.

I said that men's opinions about how feminism should be conducted are irrelevant. And as I have indicated, my opinions align with those of feminists, because I consult them and listen to them. They didn't originate inside my own head, based on what I as a man think they should do or be.

 

[Camikaze]

It's a point of feminism that white men aren't allowed to argue without first considering what it might be like to be somebody who is not a white man. That people of colour are best acquainted with the experiences of people of colour and that women are best acquainted with the experiences of women, and that if white people or men want to get involved in these discussions, they have to begin with those experiences.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it the case that not all feminism adheres to such an experiential epistemology? It strikes me as fairly selective to suggest that this is the right sort of feminism, and at least for a casual observer like myself, it seems fairly contradictory to be selective in that way whilst simultaneously criticising others for 'lecturing the oppressed on how to best liberate themselves'. I would've thought that telling someone to not lecture (which in this case seems to mean 'offer a critical opinion') is itself doing just that by placing certain forms of feminism above others. If we are to challenge the legitimacy of a white man's opinion on the topic, wouldn't that also extend to the opinion implicit to the preferencing of an experiential epistemology?

There would also be problems with a white man being the arbiter of whether another white man has properly 'considered what it might be like to be somebody who is not a white man', no?

 

[NovaKart]

If you recognize that the patriarchy hurts men as well then doesn't that also mean that there are certain issues that effect men negatively as well and that one can raise these issues without oppressing women? I don't really believe that men are the oppressor, I think this has to do with traditional culture and biology and is quite different from racial discrimination which doesn't mean that I think men and women need to be restricted to their biological roles.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

@Traitorfish
I don't disagree with anything you have said. I just disagree with the apparent conclusion that this is then the template every discussion regarding feminism or racism has to then follow. That to me just seems like ideology making productive discussion harder. Because
(1) it lacks the respect I refereed to and you just disregarded. timtofly expanded on why it is necessary.
(2) Arguments regarding feminism / racism can have many aspects. Depending on the actual subjects, all kinds of backgrounds and experiences or simple insights can be vital to a discussion. It isn't as easy as oppressed group / not oppressed to determine who has something to say and who doesn't.

What this means to me is that it is mighty fine if you or Cheezy or anyone else (perhaps myself?) say something like
"Hold on a minute. Are you sure you are aware what it means to be a subject of racism/sexism? ....." Or something like that.

But it is poisonous for the debate and IMO unfair to be like "Shut up. You have no right to talk now"

Put differently: Discussion and the occasions on which as well the context in which they arise are of great variety. I don't think this ideology of one-size-fits-it-all is more helpful than the simple idea of open exchange.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it the case that not all feminism adheres to such an experiential epistemology? It strikes me as fairly selective to suggest that this is the right sort of feminism, and at least for a casual observer like myself, it seems fairly contradictory to be selective in that way whilst simultaneously criticising others for 'lecturing the oppressed on how to best liberate themselves'. I would've thought that telling someone to not lecture (which in this case seems to mean 'offer a critical opinion') is itself doing just that by placing certain forms of feminism above others. If we are to challenge the legitimacy of a white man's opinion on the topic, wouldn't that also extend to the opinion implicit to the preferencing of an experiential epistemology?

It's actually a materialist position.

It isn't as easy as oppressed group / not oppressed to determine who has something to say and who doesn't.

Why not? That's how the oppressor operates.

 

[NovaKart]

I wonder why we even talk about a "white man's" opinion of feminism? Do people feel that non-white men are more open to feminism, which I think is quite unlikely? Or do they think that a non-white man's opinion is different for other reasons?

 

[Camikaze]

It's actually a materialist position.

I don't know what this means. Could you please elaborate?

 

[timtofly]

And lastly, you're right, I don't give an ear to "men's rights" any more than I give an ear to "White rights." Men's rights already exist. It's called patriarchy. We need less men's rights, not more. There's nothing for men to protect. Men protecting their rights is just like whites protecting their rights in the face of the expansion minority rights. Men are the oppressor. Men's Rights Activists and their ilk are the equivalent to White Power activists and people who think Affirmative Action is "reverse racism."

I didn't say that, that's why you think my argument makes no sense.

I said that men's opinions about how feminism should be conducted are irrelevant. And as I have indicated, my opinions align with those of feminists, because I consult them and listen to them. They didn't originate inside my own head, based on what I as a man think they should do or be.

If your opinions do count, they still come from you, and being a white male is your biggest enemy by your own claim.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I wonder why we even talk about a "white man's" opinion of feminism? Do people feel that non-white men are more open to feminism, which I think is quite unlikely? Or do they think that a non-white man's opinion is different for other reasons?

Well, the discussion above combined points about both race and gender, hence the term "white men" appearing together.

However, it would be true that black man would experience more oppression than a white man, but less than a black woman, because he is privileged as a man, bun underprivileged as a POC. Discussions on the issues of race and gender should not stray very far from one another. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersectionality

 

[Borachio]

Which leads me back to a previous point/suggestion: the oppressed are just as likely, if not more, to be oppressors as the unoppressed.

Contrary to expectations.

(If I haven't made myself clear enough: black men tend to treat black women if anything worse than white men treat white women. Or is this a myth put about by the "white patriachy"? It could be.)

 

[NovaKart]

Well, the discussion above combined points about both race and gender, hence the term "white men" appearing together.

However, it would be true that black man would experience more oppression than a white man, but less than a black woman, because he is privileged as a man, bun underprivileged as a POC. Discussions on the issues of race and gender should not stray very far from one another. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersectionality

I think people should regard them as rather separate because black women have had some advantages that black men have not. They have often done better in education for example. They are viewed as less threatening than black men and suffer less from police harassment.

Which leads me back to a previous point that the oppressed are just as likely, if not more, to be oppressors as the unoppressed.

Contrary to expectations.

Yeah, I think this is definitely true.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I don't know what this means. Could you please elaborate?

Well it's held by materialists that people in different material relations experience things differently, and that this shapes their worldview. Thus, we as men cannot understand women's experiences, we as whites cannot understand the experiences of POCs, etc, because their material relation to others and themselves is different from ours. To rectify this, we must learn from them about those experiences, so that we can make informed decisions based upon them.

If your opinions do count, they still come from you, and being a white male is your biggest enemy by your own claim.

As I have already explained, mine are informed by, and largely come from, women and specifically feminists. And, as I have already explained, the problem only extends to issues surrounding feminism and the like, and when speaking to women about it. I don't lecture women about feminism, I listen to them talk about it, and I talk with them about it... Hell. I've already typed this exact thing in the last hour, in this very thread. Go read it yourself. If you won't even read my posts, then don't bother responding.

 

[Narz]

Just because you are not interested in politics does not mean politics is not interested in you. You have a class whether you like it or not. Ignoring that is complacency to it.

I'm an American, I have it better than 95% of humanity. I'm white. I can walk into a restaurant & ask to use their bathroom & am probably more likely to get a yes than if I was black but I don't identify with my "class". I've lived below the poverty line for over a decade but I consider myself very lucky. I've met lots of people from all walks of life & try to treat everyone based on how they treat me.

I am interested in politics but I don't define myself by it. How society views me as a white male or how it assumes I see other people... well, I have to admit, I'm just not that interested in this stuff. I find people obsessed with race & class are generally kind of dull (and often have an agenda which doesn't necessarily empower anyone, think Al Sharpton for instance). I'm more interested in developing my character & hanging with people who have higher aspirations than defining themselves by physical attributes.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Which leads me back to a previous point/suggestion: the oppressed are just as likely, if not more, to be oppressors as the unoppressed.

Contrary to expectations.

(If I haven't made myself clear enough: black men tend to treat black women if anything worse than white men treat white women. Or is this a myth put about by the "white patriachy"? It could be.)

Probably only by virtue of proximity. But as I have endeavored to prove, racism and sexism are systemic, and not merely the product of personal relations. They're disadvantaged by society, not just by this white person or that man.

I think people should regard them as rather separate because black women have had some advantages that black men have not. They have often done better in education for example. They are viewed as less threatening than black men and suffer less from police harassment.

That's not what disadvantaged means, and I very hotly contest the suggestion that Black women get off light from police harassment. However, if it were true, it would still be understood through an intersectional lens.

I'm an American, I have it better than 95% of humanity. I'm white. I can walk into a restaurant & ask to use their bathroom & am probably more likely to get a yes than if I was black but I don't identify with my "class". I've lived below the poverty line for over a decade but I consider myself very lucky. I've met lots of people from all walks of life & try to treat everyone based on how they treat me.

That's lovely. It's also meaningless. What does it have to do with me and how I identify? Nothing.

 

[Narz]

I think people should regard them as rather separate because black women have had some advantages that black men have not. They have often done better in education for example. They are viewed as less threatening than black men and suffer less from police harassment.

Exactly, may as well play the card you're dealt as well as possible while trying to change society. For example, I watched a video about a female con-artist from the UK who exploited the "helpless, innocent female" stereotypes to exploit businesses. Much more proactive than whining about being born a woman.

The idea that you can take one look at a person & summarize how "privileged" they are based purely on sex & race (keep in mind, you often cannot tell a person's race by looking at them) is absurd. You have no idea what someone's been thru, what their abilities & disabilities are just by looking at them.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Men are the oppressor.

All men are?

And all men do is oppress?

Because that's what boldfaced categorical claims make it sound like you believe.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

All men are?

And all men do is oppress?

Because that's what boldfaced categorical claims make it sound like you believe.

Yes. All men. Men constitute a political class. They run society, they dominate society. They enjoy privileges and advantages that women do not, by virtue of that control. We call this structure the patriarchy. That's why I am a class traitor. I am a man who benefits from this structure simply by existing, and simply by it existing, but I don't want to, and I think this is wrong, so I seek to destroy it.

 

[Borachio]

I'm not sure that using words like "destroy" is going to have the desired effect. For some reason people don't take kindly to being destroyed. Even if it's only their positions that are destroyed.

Couldn't we talk about promoting the evolution of society into a better state?

 

[Light Cleric]

As I have already explained, mine are informed by, and largely come from, women and specifically feminists. And, as I have already explained, the problem only extends to issues surrounding feminism and the like, and when speaking to women about it. I don't lecture women about feminism, I listen to them talk about it, and I talk with them about it... Hell. I've already typed this exact thing in the last hour, in this very thread. Go read it yourself. If you won't even read my posts, then don't bother responding.

And I already explained how you ignore people who do this when their conclusion and viewpoints differ from yours, but that was...well, ignored.

I really would like to hear why the viewpoints of these women isn't valid, and who you think you are to know who everyone else talks to as informed by.