Gender again. Sorry!

[winjim]

What the f*ck is this constant 'transactivist' dogwhistle bullsh*t and why are you equating them with actual f*cking Nazis?

 

[AuroraSaab]

There you go putting words in my mouth again.
Working class men were not instrumental in the oppression of women. Historical accounts show how the Chartists (working class men) organised and campaigned against their own oppression. Had they not been successful in breaking down some of the barriers, then many historians with feminists among them say that bringing that oppression of women may have taken much longer.

So I'm not going to join in with your narrative that men have been oppressing women, because as has been shown, the correct reading of history, and this is not pedantry, that wealthy men and women campaigned to oppress the poor regardless of their sex. Whether people choose to view this through the oppression of the rights of the poor or the protection of privilege of the land owners doesn't bother me, but the truth is worth protecting. This ties in with the history of the role of benefactors, work houses etc, none of which should be overlooked in our history.

Working class men didn't oppress women? They were all fully in support of women being educated and having careers not just low paid jobs were they? Weren't complicit in the treadmill of pregnancy and childbirth that most women of all classes endured for centuries? Campaigned for equal pay in the centuries leading up to the 1970's when it became law?

And rich women weren't oppressed, albeit in different ways, like forced marriage and becoming the property of their husbands?

It's not the Oppression Olympics but crikey it takes some nerve to reposition working class men as just as oppressed as women as a class over the last 2 thousand years.

 

[AuroraSaab]

LOL. If I was doing Women's Rights Activism and Nazis showed up in ever increasing and emboldened numbers, I'd probably stop what I was doing and have a think. Unless I'd actually invited them, of course.

I agree she could do more to distance herself but what on earth makes you think a group of adult males, who are there only to confront other adult males, are going to listen to KJK? She's not their mum. And if she said 'Other groups please stay away' and they did, you'd say 'See, KJK controls the Nazis' lol.

 

[AuroraSaab]

What the f*ck is this constant 'transactivist' dogwhistle bullsh*t and why are you equating them with actual f*cking Nazis?

What would you call people who turn up with signs saying 'Decapitate Terfs' or who try to intimidate women at conferences and meetings, if not trans activists? I haven't equated them with Nazis. All the people who rock up at these demos are mainly aggressive men who don't give a toss about women. They have their own agendas.

 

[monkers]

Working class men didn't oppress women? They were all fully in support of women being educated and having careers not just low paid jobs were they? Weren't complicit in the treadmill of pregnancy and childbirth that most women of all classes endured for centuries? Campaigned for equal pay in the centuries leading up to the 1970's when it became law?

And rich women weren't oppressed, albeit in different ways, like forced marriage and becoming the property of their husbands?

It's not the Oppression Olympics but crikey it takes some nerve to reposition working class men as just as oppressed as women as a class over the last 2 thousand years.

Poverty was the biggest oppression regardless of sex, and it's making a return. Maybe you could do a Sunak and reply to every question with 'stop the small boats' and save all that screen ink.

 

[Rusty Nails]

What the f*ck is this constant 'transactivist' dogwhistle bullsh*t and why are you equating them with actual f*cking Nazis?

In internet forums, apparently, anyone can be likened to the Nazis.

 

[icowden]

This is such irrelevant cobblers. You haven't even managed to revise your opinion that KJK is a 'women's rights activist', whilst she's engaged on a world tour flanked by actual Nazis everywhere she goes.

Cows have four legs. All things with four legs are not cows.

Or in other words it is possible to have more than one opinion on more than one thing. Unfortunately frothing right wingers see women's rights as the opposite to trans rights and thus jump on the bandwagon.

Even in this thread we only seem to be able to acknowledge two groups. Trans activists and Anti-Trans Activists.
I'd posit that there are at least 3. There are people who are genuinely transgender who would like some changes in law to make their lives easier. There are people who want to exploit the changes that those genuinely transgender want. And then there are women who are not worried about people who are genuinely transgender but *are* worried about the other lot.

I know it's a lot to grasp as men have never been exploitative historically speaking, but some people think it's a possibility.

 

[winjim]

What would you call people who turn up with signs saying 'Decapitate Terfs' or who try to intimidate women at conferences and meetings, if not trans activists? I haven't equated them with Nazis. All the people who rock up at these demos are mainly aggressive men who don't give a toss about women. They have their own agendas.

That's not the way you use the term and you f*cking well know it.

 

[winjim]

In internet forums, apparently, anyone can be likened to the Nazis.

To be fair, the people I've referred to as 'actual Nazis' are more Nazi wannabes but they identify with the brand so I think it's fair to call them that.

Nazi being a perjorative term, of course.

 

[mudsticks]

Working class men didn't oppress women? They were all fully in support of women being educated and having careers not just low paid jobs were they? Weren't complicit in the treadmill of pregnancy and childbirth that most women of all classes endured for centuries? Campaigned for equal pay in the centuries leading up to the 1970's when it became law?

And rich women weren't oppressed, albeit in different ways, like forced marriage and becoming the property of their husbands?

It's not the Oppression Olympics but crikey it takes some nerve to reposition working class men as just as oppressed as women as a class over the last 2 thousand years.

I agree to suggest that 'working class' men didn't or even don't oppress women, is a laughable proposition.

For the avoidance of doubt as I seem to have kicked off the oppression of women / hard won rights thing, I wasn't just talking about 'political' oppression of women, or the right to vote, or whenever when and where that right was wrested patchily for ourselves..

I'm talking about more generalised oppression of women that still goes on, among all classes, even those lovely .

The real and implied violence, the physical restriction, lack of bodily autonomy, economic and social oppression, and yes the inequalities that still exist in the balance of true political power.

Brought about by living under centuries of patriachy, the effects of which, both subtle and unsubtle, have not gone away - I mean why would they, when keeping women 'in their place' keeping them down, just a bit, at least seems to benefit rather a lot of men

In 'law' we may be supposed to be treated 'equally'.

In reality the day to day lives of a large proportion of women, particularly those less priveleged women, are even now anything but 'equal'.

And this inequality is based on their sex.

 

[monkers]

I agree to suggest that 'working class' men didn't or even don't oppress women, is a laughable proposition.

At least maintain the context otherwise you are doing an Aurora.

It's no laughable proposition. The people who kept Britain's poor away from the vote were not those without the vote themselves - this is too bloody obvious. The people who kept Britain's poor away from the vote were those with the vote - mainly men but including some women who met the qualifying conditions. During the period 1832 to 1918 women had lost the vote, but some (I don't know the number) of the blue stocking women campaigned to make it so.

The general assertions made by AS that women had never had rights to property and never had the vote before 1928 is flat out wrong and not mere pedantry on my part. Men need not shoulder the blame for this when so few of them had the right to vote themselves.

Domestic violence is outside the purview of the EqA 2010, so why does this keep being raised in connection with the rights of trans people cemented by the GRA 2004? It's a distraction intending to provoke an emotive response rather than a worthy or valid argument. I'd call it an emotional oppression of men today and I think it shameful.

The ongoing levels of DV (both ways) in this country is a national disgrace and it is thoroughly wrong to suggest that it is being downplayed on this thread. It is worthy of a discussion on its own terms, but this has been attempted before as I recall. The problem is not related to trans rights. If I'm wrong then that needs to be spelt out as I'm not seeing it.

 

[newfhouse]

True. It's always futile to engage here, which is why I took time out. Why I came back I don't know and is now a matter of regret.

FWIW, it seems to me you add at least as much light as heat here.

 

[AuroraSaab]

That's not the way you use the term and you f*cking well know it.

Explain to me what I mean by the term then, as you can obviously read my mind. I deliberately use that term and don't say 'trans people' because there are lots of trans people who don't support that kind of activism. And a lot of trans activists aren't transgender.

 

[Rusty Nails]

To be fair, the people I've referred to as 'actual Nazis' are more Nazi wannabes but they identify with the brand so I think it's fair to call them that.

Nazi being a perjorative term, of course.

I don't know who you have referred to as Nazis but I am sure you believe they deserve it.

 

[AuroraSaab]

At least maintain the context otherwise you are doing an Aurora.

It's no laughable proposition. The people who kept Britain's poor away from the vote were not those without the vote themselves - this is too bloody obvious. The people who kept Britain's poor away from the vote were those with the vote - mainly men but including some women who met the qualifying conditions. During the period 1832 to 1918 women had lost the vote, but some (I don't know the number) of the blue stocking women campaigned to make it so.

It's perfectly possible to be oppressed in one respect (economically, by those who control the wealth) and an oppresser of others (eg women or other races). In fact, the world order relies on it. To suggest that poor women throughout history haven't generally had a sh*ttier time of it than poor men, simply because a small number of women in society were well off, is indeed laughable.