Remember, kids: we can’t work to address sexual assault and violence against women unless we do so in a way that doesn’t hurt men’s feelings.
Or limits their rights.
If only the board had some people, activists even, that would come to the defense of men’s rights. Yes, if only this board had some MRAs to go with its TERFs. Then we could learn all about the real victims of violence, men.
Have I been unsubtle enough?
As a provocative thought experiment, I think it serves its purpose. As a man, I don’t want to be subject to a curfew imposed to try to control people who are not me, but also I don’t feel that as a man, I bear any more responsibility than any other member of society (male or female) for the problem of violence. If I could fix it, I would love to do that, but I don’t know how to fix it, and at the same time, I feel like there are those with the view that the violence is somewhat my fault, any my responsibility, by association of sex.
This is the functional equivalent of a preacher sermonizing about sexual depravity not after having done awful things to children, but while doing it on the pulpit. If you can’t address sexism without yourself being an unrepentant sexist, then you have no moral ground to stand on and do more damage to your cause than aid.
People do not respond positively to “your feelings don’t matter you subhuman monster,” they cement their beliefs or radicalize against you.
Ask former and current members of hate groups why the sign up for them. Long story short: it’s usually a dehumanizing encounter with a rogue member of the target of hatred coupled with a sense of respect, identity and invitation from the said hate group.
Look what you made me do.
Similarly, I feel like there are those who think that violence is somewhat my fault, and my responsibility, because I persist in walking on the streets and night, and encourage other women to do likewise.
I’m pretty sure neither of us is responsible for violence on the streets, against either women or men.
I apologize for accurately summarizing your position.
But perfectly ok to lump all women and their behaviors together because we are one unified group. For example Men vs women- take NO for a answer?
You can have a dialogue about or work to address the very real issues at hand without the flagrant hypocrisy, total disregard for 50% of the human population, and making more enemies than allies.
In fact that thread does not do that, it is clear that there are many ways of saying “no”.
So the existence of the Klan is really the black folks fault for being uppity? Because trying to get men to see how their assumptions about women are dehumanizing by turning around the advice that men give women and then BLAMING WOMEN for men being too fragile to see that is… well, a take.
The Klan exists because of racist jerkoffs from centuries ago. The Klan is often attractive to new blood because vulnerable people have bad experiences and look at their options - they can side with a group that goes on television saying they were born racist monsters and deserve no sympathy or they can side with the group that says “hey we understand your pain and respect you as a person.” Guess which one has a much better sales pitch?
Indeed so. I would like to find ways to start toward fixing this, that don’t include blaming the wrong parties.
Or as Stanislaus put it, “Look what you made me do.” It’s the same disingenuous argument used by the “Gosh, I might have voted for Clinton but then she called me a deplorable so I was forced to vote for Trump” people (here and elsewhere). No one is fooled by it.
If your position is that any attempts to address the quite considerable issue of rape, sexual assault and domestic violence can only be made if every effort is made first to tiptoe around the fragile feelings of those who are least affected by those issues, the only conclusion one can draw is that the personal feelings of the one group are more important to you than the physical safety of the other, despite the paper-thin veneer of pretended allyhood you’re pasted over it. But apparently some people have no particular issue with - how did you put it? - flagrant hypocrisy, total disregard for 50% of the population, and making more enemies than allies.
While #notallmen remains true, so does #toodamnmanymen. And judging by some of the posts in this thread, it appears women have even fewer male allies they can count on than I thought.
So it is the black folks fault then for not simply going along with centuries of oppression? This seems to be a very flawed defense of white male supremacy. The blacks and women shouldn’t rock the boat and shine a mirror to discrimination? Lest the white or male supremacists have a “better sales pitch”?
Can you just unpack how it is you think that hurting the feelings of one group is productive to promoting the safety of the other?
Can you let me know just how far women have to go to avoiding hurting men’s feelings when discussing sexual assault and domestic violence? Does every conversation have to come with specific statistics, citations and an annotated bibliography? Should there be a legal disclaimer attached recognizing that any references to “men” may not universally apply to every single man everywhere? Perhaps women who have experienced multiple incidences of sexual assault throughout their lives should carry with them a signed affidavit setting out the specific names of the perpetrators so that they can indicate which men they are specifically referring to?
OR - and this is just a crazy suggestion - anyone bothered by unqualified references to “men” could recognize that not everything is about them and their feelings, and that even if they are genuinely not part of the problem there is a very real issue caused by a disturbingly large percentage of men that ought to be a higher priority to them than having their insecurities assuaged.
?? I don’t think Gyrate was saying that at all (although of course IAN Gyrate and cannot speak for etc. etc. etc.). The point was that discussions of this issue should be honest rather than deferential.
Sexism and patriarchy are bad for everybody. They lead not just to increased violence and harassment against women, and efforts to shift the responsibility for controlling that onto women’s own behavior, but also to increased violence against men and a culture of shame and silence around the issue of male victimization.
All of this needs to be fixed, and we shouldn’t avoid pointing these things out because some men may mistakenly infer from it an accusation along the lines of “all men are violent” and get their feelings hurt.
If the plan were to promote safety of one group by hurting the feelings of the other, it would indeed be a dumb plan. But of course that’s not what’s happening here. The plan is more like;
- Raise awareness of male violence against women and girls
- Raise awareness of the total inadequacy of the public advice given to women
- Suggest that if we want to fix the problem men as a whole are going to have take a more active role, and possibly even accept some negative changes in their lives as part of the solution.
From those inputs people might expect the following outputs
- Reduced male violence against women
- Fewer women having to structure their social lives around the possibility of assault
- Some men feeling to some degree or other upset.
The third is an unfortunate by-product. By one theory, it’s a necessary one. We can’t get gains 1) and 2) without the cost of 3). Another theory says that it’s too great a price to pay - that some men’s feelings are in fact more important than women’s safety and sense of freedom. And the third theory is that in fact you can’t have 1), 2) and 3) - because the effect of 3) is force men into behaviour and attitudes that at best maintain the current status quo with respect to violence against women.
Now maybe there is a better solution. A way to talk about, and come up with solutions for, male violence against women that doesn’t impact on men’s feelings and achieves positive results. That would be awesome. But we haven’t found it yet and I can’t imagine what it might look like.
Hopefully I’ve made my position clear in this thread but I think this is wrong:
Unfortunately some people (in this topic, men) think the patriarchy is good for them. We run up against this whenever we try to fight inequality, whether it’s racism, white privilege, economic, etc. The people in the privileged position want to help…until it negatively effects them. etasyde is a good example; he (?) would likely support women until someone suggests a solution that would lessen his privilege.