> The left, and in particular the radical left, has no issue having such constant discourse in regards to men.
Why would there be? The point of view is not one of describing some hypothetical world but our concrete world.
We don't. We have a problem with the context this is brought up with. Like the Kiergegaard story about the madman and the round Earth.
> this is definitely not the case - anyone even hinting at this is soon labelled racist
Totally made up BS. If you choose to misunderstand things, that's not our fault. OTOH, people who believe that blacks are somehow more innately inclined towards crime -- a scientific fallacy -- are racist, and so their "labeling" as such is not only justified but necessary. I don't know what word best describes racism other than "racism".
> In general, we don't like talking about innate qualities
"Men violence against women" - Title of a lot of writing, government reports, books, and so on from the left. We don't see "foreigners violence against Swedes" or "Muslims violence against non-believers". That would be titles from far right writing. A spade is a spade on both side when looked at from the middle.
> men have been subjugating women almost everywhere almost constantly for many centuries if not millennia, while Islam has become abnormally overrepresented in terrorism only very recently
No, yes, and no. Religion has been associated with wars and violence for centuries if not millennia. Gender roles has also existed for that long, but only very recently being describe as subjugating. History get interpreted through political leaning and rewriting history is an old political trick by both the left and right. Reading how life was a few hundred years have very little in the form of gender subjugating, unless you count taking men from their home and against their will putting them on the war front to die. Much of cultural values in historical society can be derive from two core gender roles, that of the nurture role and the support role. One exist to create the family, the other exist to supply food and defense. If we want to describe that as subjugating then lets call what it is. Both are being subjugated. Take any time in history and what we have is a lack of liberty for the 99% of the population, men or women. The 99% rarely if ever has power, control, or freedom from subjugating.
But that's not what we do. First, instead of looking at just 2% of the population as you seem to suggest we should do, we look at all of them, and on the whole, much more power is held by men than by women. Second, we feminists generally care much more about the bottom 1% (or 50%) of society -- be they men, women, black or white -- than the rich and powerful men at the top 1%. You can see that not only in historical events (feminists were a strong power among the abolitionists in 19th century US) but even if you look at current events, and see that women are disproportionately represented in demonstrations against unfair incarceration, against deportation of refugees etc..
> "Men violence against women" - Title of a lot of writing, government reports, books, and so on from the left.
I don't see any reference to innate qualities here.
> We don't see "foreigners violence against Swedes" or "Muslims violence against non-believers".
First, because unlike men violence against women, those are actually outliers rather than the norm. Second, like I wrote in another comment, I don't understand your expectation. If the position of Muslims and immigrants in a Western country is so very different from that of native men, why would you even want them to be treated the same? Is a diamond handled the same way as limestone just because they are both rocks? Note that I am not talking about any innate qualities, just the current state of affairs.
> Gender roles has also existed for that long, but only very recently being describe as subjugating.
That's just a total and complete fabrication. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_feminism and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protofeminism
> Reading how life was a few hundred years have very little in the form of gender subjugating, unless you count taking men from their home and against their will putting them on the war front to die.
I actually studied history (mostly medieval) in grad school, and what you're writing here is total BS.
> Much of cultural values in historical society can be derive from two core gender roles, that of the nurture role and the support role. One exist to create the family, the other exist to supply food and defense.
Do you still believe that the world is made of the four classical elements? Do you believe that the Earth is flat? If you had actually studied history from actual historians and primary sources, the ideas you mention here would sound equally ridiculous to you as the four elements and the flat Earth. 1. they are mostly ahistorical fabrications, and 2. to the small extent that they are historically true, their explanative power is false as the claim would work in the same way to justify any current state of affairs -- we're here because the system is good. For example, in the time of slavery I could use the exact same description to justify slavery; in fact people did exactly that (and slavery has made much more economical "sense" than the subjugation of women) and yet changing the system turined out just fine. Finally, suppose that this fantasy were true (although I truly feel sorry for you that you've somehow been convinced by such BS), as I mentioned above throughout history women have expressed anger at their subjugation -- do you morally support constantly harming billions of others even for some imagined greater good? Do you also support slavery, then?
I can't stop you from being of the opinion that women should be subjugated (unfortunately, this is far from a fringe opinion; in a way, it's still the ruling opinion although it's no longer usually made so explicit), but please don't try to justify that position using fabricated history.
Kritikerna menar att det finns de som vill ha brottsstatistik
över etnicitet, det är en helt annan debatt. Det är rasism att
koppla ihop brott med etnicitet eller religion. Den debatten
är bortspelad för länge sedan, förutom hos vissa moderater som
vill värva röster från Sverigedemokraterna, säger Daniel Riazat.
Critics state there are those who want to collect statistics
on ethnicity related to criminality but that is an entirely
different debate. ___It is racist to connect crime with ethnicity
or religion___. This debate has played out a long time ago apart
from some 'Moderates' (neo-liberals) who want to gather votes
for the Sweden Democrats (nationalists) says Daniel Riazat.
[1] https://www.svd.se/v-vill-samla-in-info-om-etnicitet-och-rel...
Studies like this are hard, because they're usually labeled 'racist',
or it turns into an ad hominem attack on the authors, or struck down
in the media for singling out some minority group.
Vilken roll kan det ha spelat?
– Jag tror att den aktivism som fanns mot både Säkerhetspolisen
och de som försökte lyfta allvaret i de här frågorna. Det gjorde
att tröskeln blev högre för både politiker och andra att ge sig
in i det här området, säger han.
– Man riskerade att bli utpekad som rasist på ett sätt som man
inte såg i andra europeiska länder. Där var den här frågan lika
okontroversiell som vikten av att bekämpa nazism och högerextremism.
Men i Sverige tog det lång tid innan det gick att diskutera jihadismen
på samma sätt som vi under lång tid diskuterat nazism, säger Hyllengren.
What role can this have played?
– I think that the activism against both the security services and those
who tried to point out the seriousness of the situation [played a role].
This made that the bar was raised both for politicians and other who
would dare to speak out on these subjects, he said.
– You ran the risk of being pointed out as racist in a way which was not
seen in other European countries. There this question was as uncontroversial
as the importance of fighting nazism and right-wing extremism. In Sweden on
the other hand it took a long time before it was possible to discuss jihadism
in the same way we've been discussing nazism for a long time, says Hyllengren.
No, you most certainly have not. Study A that mentions claim X may be not racist, while study B that claims X may be racist. I said that A is not racist, and your examples of B being labeled racist do not disprove it. My whole point about the unfortunate misunderstanding is that people think that since B is racist (due to context) then X is "unfairly labeled as racist" when, in fact, it is not X which is racist, but B.
> This is, yet again, a literal quote proving the point of the original statement which launched this thread.
I don't know about the situation in Sweden so I can't comment on it. It's possible that what I said is not the case in Sweden. On the other hand, it is also possible that the person quoted, like you, misunderstands what it is that is labeled racist. I do know that claims like yours about X being labeled racist when it is, in fact, B which is called racist because it is racist, are made in the US as well, despite being generally false. It's like someone complaining about being laughed at while talking about, say, bed bugs, then saying that bed bugs are ridiculed, but neglects to mention that he was wearing a bug-shaped hat while talking about bed-bugs, and it is the delivery that was ridiculed. Context matters.
Why would there be? The point of view is not one of describing some hypothetical world but our concrete world. If in our concrete world the position of, say, white men and that of blacks is different, why would you even assume that the two should be treated the same in discussions of society? No sociologist, anthropologist or historian would say that social issues in an imaginary world where blacks and whites have equal power should be studied in the same way as in a real world where they don't. Statistics are studied in their appropriate context; otherwise, they're misleading.
> The subtext from much of left literature is to instill the idea that violence is innately male
No, violence is usually male, but I don't think we consider it innate in the sense you seem to allude to (i.e., as the main cause or as a sign of an inability to change). In general, we don't like talking about innate qualities for several reasons. 1. The science is vague and weak at best -- even when innate qualities are found, their respective strength is unknown and the effect size is usually far too small compared to observation, which suggests that in many cases innate causes have weak explanatory power, and 2. innate causes make for very bad excuses when it comes to calls for changing behavior; innate biological capabilities explain 100% of humans' inability to fly, yet that hasn't stopped us from wanting to and succeeding in building airplanes. In fact, if you find any subtext in leftist thought particularly emphasizes any innate uncontrollable trait, then I'd say you've either found something quite unusual or you've completely missed the mark. The general tendency not to focus on innate "essentialism" is among the left's most distinguishing marks. It's not that we deny the possibility of strong innate forces, but we think that even when they are overwhelmingly strong -- such as the case of flying and airplanes -- they are often overcome, and such a focus is often used as a reactionary stance against change even though that does not follow even from the claimed innateness.
> The association to the male sex is similar to the association to race or the association between Muslims and terrorism.
Yes and no. Yes in the sense that both are indeed correlations. No in the sense that men have been subjugating women almost everywhere almost constantly for many centuries if not millennia, while Islam has become abnormally overrepresented in terrorism only very recently, correlated with decline, not rise in its power.