Well you can’t just switch out labels like that, that is the whole point!
a) critizing “all men” means critizing men as a class. The dominant class in relation to the oppressed class. They’re not talking about you the individual, they’re talking about the class of men.
b) critizing “all muslims” is very much critizing every muslim as an individual. Muslims aren’t a societal class, but a huge group of people that have nothing in common other than them claiming to be part of the same religion.
The difference is that a class is in relation to another class, you can’t have “men” without “women”. You can’t have “employers” without “employees”. You can’t have “slavers” without “slaves”. You can very much have “muslims” without “christians”. One is talking about societal structure and dynamics, the other about a trait shared by a group of people. One talks about societies perception of the individual (You’ll get treated like a man if people around you think you are one) the other about an individuals self-understanding (You’re a muslim if you say are one).
That’s why one comment is fine and the other is very much deletable.
While you approached this in a way regarding class I am approaching this in regards to identity, one also chooses to be a man and once you mix that in those statements suddenly become personal. I’ve had both being a man and Muslim be used against me and they have both provided me benefits.
The way I see is these statements are also just ways of establishing “men” as the outgroup; encouraging tribalism. So being able to substitute one tribe with another becomes possible.
Nevertheless, I appreciated the well put response. It sadly can’t really compete with my lived-in experiences. I still fight to leave the world better than I found it, just not along the people that have accused me of being a predator (both as part of a group or as an individual).
Well you can’t just switch out labels like that, that is the whole point!
a) critizing “all men” means critizing men as a class. The dominant class in relation to the oppressed class. They’re not talking about you the individual, they’re talking about the class of men.
b) critizing “all muslims” is very much critizing every muslim as an individual. Muslims aren’t a societal class, but a huge group of people that have nothing in common other than them claiming to be part of the same religion.
The difference is that a class is in relation to another class, you can’t have “men” without “women”. You can’t have “employers” without “employees”. You can’t have “slavers” without “slaves”. You can very much have “muslims” without “christians”. One is talking about societal structure and dynamics, the other about a trait shared by a group of people. One talks about societies perception of the individual (You’ll get treated like a man if people around you think you are one) the other about an individuals self-understanding (You’re a muslim if you say are one).
That’s why one comment is fine and the other is very much deletable.
While you approached this in a way regarding class I am approaching this in regards to identity, one also chooses to be a man and once you mix that in those statements suddenly become personal. I’ve had both being a man and Muslim be used against me and they have both provided me benefits.
The way I see is these statements are also just ways of establishing “men” as the outgroup; encouraging tribalism. So being able to substitute one tribe with another becomes possible.
Nevertheless, I appreciated the well put response. It sadly can’t really compete with my lived-in experiences. I still fight to leave the world better than I found it, just not along the people that have accused me of being a predator (both as part of a group or as an individual).