YesAllWomen

[BigT]

@Munch

I think you have lost all sense of perspective on this (if there was any to begin with), since that is not in any way an accurate statement. It’s about the experiences of women, period. That men are often a part of those experiences doesn’t actually make it about men. Unless you want to maintain a massive persecution complex about it, of course.

I suggest you read the thread again, because #YesAllWomen was explicitly stated to be started as a reaction to “not all men.” The tag’s wouldn’t make sense unless it was referencing something to do with rape/misogyny/etc. You don’t need a persecution complex to figure out the message here.

And, despite my now third post in a row, I don’t personally feel insulted by #YesAllWomen. But the only reason is that I am an optimist and assume that no insult is intended, and, as I’ve said many times before, it is irrational to feel insulted if someone is not intending to insult you.

I’d say that’s’ about as far as you can get from having a persecution complex.

[Jragon]

@even_sven

• “Ladies I get what your saying but it’s kind of dull. Can we throw in some video games to make it more relate able?”

If that’s referring to my contrasting this is #OneReasonWhy that wasn’t my point. The point was that #OneReasonWhy drew attention to a specific issue – gender discrimination in the gaming and tech industry, which is both under-talked about and a specific, focused topic with clearly defined boundaries. My issue with #YesAllWomen is that it’s a sort of vague, meandering tag that just talks about whatever in society gets that person’s personal goat. “Misogyny” is very broad, attacking all of it at once is like trying to tear down a mountain with a mattock. Alone. In the summer.

If you want to make a Twitter tag to specifically talk about college rape and sexual assault, or harassment at bars or parties, or sexism in Congress, or catcalling, or whatever else. That’s cool, full support. #YesAllWomen is just too broad for me to see it having any purpose or effect other than allowing people to vent. Which is perfectly fine and perhaps even necessary, but not exactly effective activism. You can always use the “it raises discussion” excuse, but from what I’ve seen it fails even at that. Most of the discussion about #YesAllWomen has been focused around the tag itself, while #OneReasonWhy was focused on the issues the tag raised.

It has nothing to do with the fact that it talked about the tech industry or video games, it’s that it seems to have no clearly defined aim other than an attempt to tackle “issues women in Western nations deal with”. Not even activist organizations with actual funding can pull off a mission as vague and broad as that, why would a Twitter tag?

[even_sven]

@Jragon

If that’s referring to my contrasting this is #OneReasonWhy that wasn’t my point. The point was that #OneReasonWhy drew attention to a specific issue – gender discrimination in the gaming and tech industry, which is both under-talked about and a specific, focused topic with clearly defined boundaries. My issue with #YesAllWomen is that it’s a sort of vague, meandering tag that just talks about whatever in society gets that person’s personal goat. “Misogyny” is very broad, attacking all of it at once is like trying to tear down a mountain with a mattock. Alone. In the summer.

If you want to make a Twitter tag to specifically talk about college rape and sexual assault, or harassment at bars or parties, or sexism in Congress, or catcalling, or whatever else. That’s cool, full support. #YesAllWomen is just too broad for me to see it having any purpose or effect other than allowing people to vent. Which is perfectly fine and perhaps even necessary, but not exactly effective activism. You can always use the “it raises discussion” excuse, but from what I’ve seen it fails even at that. Most of the discussion about #YesAllWomen has been focused around the tag itself, while #OneReasonWhy was focused on the issues the tag raised.

It has nothing to do with the fact that it talked about the tech industry or video games, it’s that it seems to have no clearly defined aim other than an attempt to tackle “issues women in Western nations deal with”. Not even activist organizations with actual funding can pull off a mission as vague and broad as that, why would a Twitter tag?

But given that #YesAllWomen became an international phenomenon, can you admit that maybe it does strike the right chord with a lot of people and probably did something right, even of you personally don’t find it compelling?

Or, more simply, this isn’t about you

[Jragon]

@even_sven

But given that #YesAllWomen became an international phenomenon, can you admit that maybe it does strike the right chord with a lot of people and probably did something right, even of you personally don’t find it compelling?

Or, more simply, this isn’t about you

That’s totally fair, and to be clear, my issue with it isn’t that people are using it. If it means something to people, I’m happy that it fulfills some need for them. My issue is more calling it “activism”, which it seems to be lauded as. Personally, it strikes me as an extremely lazy type of activism – not because it’s on Twitter, but because of the lack of focus making its message difficult to pinpoint and do anything about (especially since that message is often contradictory between tag users).

I’m totally cool admitting that it helps people in some way, and I’m happy to say that it should keep going as long as it does that. I don’t fault it for existing at all, I’m just not impressed with the marketing of it as some sort of revolutionary movement as some blogs and whatnot have been doing.

[Munch]

@BigT

#YesAllWomen was explicitly stated to be started as a reaction to “not all men.”

That still doesn’t make it about men. It’s about women’s experiences with men. There’s a difference.

[Czarcasm]

@zweisamkeit

So seriously, please explain why anyone should take your question as sincere? Because when you ask for advice and then ignore or shoot down every suggestion you get? Man, that doesn’t go over well when it’s about needing a good storage solution for your collection of vintage dog collars, let alone about how to help a sociological minority group.

Collection of dog collars-WTF??
My questions as to what more I can do beyond reading that twitter account, and what would be the best direction to focus my efforts, were sincere. As I think I mentioned before, telling me to “just go out and do something” is not very good advice because I only have a limited lifespan and I don’t want to waste my time doing something that, while it might make me feel good about myself, in the end accomplishes little. I have stepped up efforts to show my displeasure with people that make disparaging remarks to and about women at my place of employment (which happens to be a trucking company), and am looking into directing some of the money brought in by the non-profit conventions I work with towards womens shelters. I don’t do vanity checks on my name, so if I failed to respond to someone, I apologize.

[Bricker]

@Dangerosa

If Ryan suddenly comes up with Megan’s idea say “didn’t Megan suggest nearly the same thing last week?” And on interrupting, “I’d like to hear the rest of Megan’s thoughts.”

I agree that both these are likely to be helpful and unlikely to cause Megan to be upset at me for butting in.

@Dangerosa

If you notice that Ryan talks to Megan’s chest, say “you know, I’ve noticed…and if I’ve noticed…Megan has noticed…talk to her face.”

Here, on the other hand, I think it’s plausible that Megan would NOT appreciate my directness if I said it when she was present, and it’s plausible that if Megan were to hear that I made this comment to Ryan when she wasn’t present, would excoriate me for “white-knighting” and denying her agency to handle the issue on her own terms.

Am I mistaken?

[Slithy_Tove]

If you’ve read Dan Savage’s column on this, and understand his take on it as I do, the correct course of action for men is to “shut up and listen” and to change the culture of the men you’re among.

That second part gets complicated, though. Interpose yourself in between a creep and a woman on a bus? Make a citizens arrest on a date-rape-drugger in a club? React to violence on women jokes the same as we do to nigger jokes? No problem, that comes naturally.

Address men’s issues as needed: the bullying, the exploitation, etc. NOT as reactions to feminist doctrine, but head-on. That’s what they deserve and require. (example: boys are drugged into submission with bullshit diagnoses for ADHD all the Goddamn time. An argument “Aha! we cry about Rohypnol but not Ritalin! Misandry! Misandry!” just poisons the discussion.

However, at what point do I transgress? I’m no connoisseur, but Louis Theroux interviewed porn actors in the 90’s, then again in the 00’s to see how things had changed, and they the insiders agreed that themes had grown darker, angrier and more extreme. But if I think our culture’s erotica is offensive, am I being sex-negative?

Of if I know of a woman who’s acting out sexually due to low self-esteem, and her partners are talking shit about her behind her back, should I confront them? No, they aren’t rapist, but they may have manipulated a vulnerable person. Should I say something to her? “You need to know a few things about who these guys really are.” “You’re better than this,” etc. Or am I just slut-shaming?

I’m asking this as the guy who, many years ago, went to the same parties we all go to when we’re young: most of the young men and woman are there to get a little bit high and hook up. A few of the woman will get too high, and a few of the men will prey on that. And then a very few guys like me would hold those women’s’ hair while they puked, and sit with them to keep them safe. And then I went o to marry alcoholics, and they never had to take responsibility for their choices, and I could pretend I had no faults of my own.

[Dangerosa]

@Bricker

I agree that both these are likely to be helpful and unlikely to cause Megan to be upset at me for butting in.

Here, on the other hand, I think it’s plausible that Megan would NOT appreciate my directness if I said it when she was present, and it’s plausible that if Megan were to hear that I made this comment to Ryan when she wasn’t present, would excoriate me for “white-knighting” and denying her agency to handle the issue on her own terms.

Am I mistaken?

I’m not suggesting you do it when Megan is present. But rather pull him aside.

And should Megan hear about it, no I don’t think she’d think you were out of line. I know several men who are uncomfortable when other men talk at a woman’s breast so its noticeable - you have a right to speak out if something makes you uncomfortable - at least I would give you credit for being uncomfortable YOURSELF, not white knighting me.

But people are different. Its possible that Megan likes being interrupted and has a huge crush on Ryan and anything you do to interfere with their precious interaction would be out of line.

And part of the problem here is that if I bring it up as a woman, a man like Ryan doesn’t respect it - because he doesn’t respect me. I can take agency, but it doesn’t mean I’ll get anywhere or anything will change. If you bring it up as a man, he might respect it. Its screwy, but that’s the dynamics.

[Jimmy_Chitwood]

@Bricker

Here, on the other hand, I think it’s plausible that Megan would NOT appreciate my directness if I said it when she was present, and it’s plausible that if Megan were to hear that I made this comment to Ryan when she wasn’t present, would excoriate me for “white-knighting” and denying her agency to handle the issue on her own terms.

Am I mistaken?

What is the relevance of this belief, though? If it’s plausible that a hypothetical person could unfairly interpret your well-intentioned actions, then … ?

It’s a rhetorical question but I think it’s an important point in a thread like this. BigT and others seem to place great importance on this suggestion that men as a group are not being helpful and in fact are often being harmful when, in the context of these conversations, they insist on focusing on the possibility of an innocent man, let’s call him BT, being unfairly maligned. Isn’t your question an example of, for lack of a better way to put it, making it about you and not about the Megans of the world?

It seems to me that that’s sort of the crux of the debate, such as it is.

[Shodan]

@Jimmy_Chitwood

Isn’t your question an example of, for lack of a better way to put it, making it about you and not about the Megans of the world?

“All men are potential rapists.”

“I’m not a potential rapist!”

“Quit making this about you!”

:shrugs:

Sometimes women just like to complain, and lots of the time what they want to complain about is men.

Regards,
Shodan

[Bricker]

@Jimmy_Chitwood

What is the relevance of this belief, though? If it’s plausible that a hypothetical person could unfairly interpret your well-intentioned actions, then … ?

It’s a rhetorical question but I think it’s an important point in a thread like this. BigT and others seem to place great importance on this suggestion that men as a group are not being helpful and in fact are often being harmful when, in the context of these conversations, they insist on focusing on the possibility of an innocent man, let’s call him BT, being unfairly maligned. Isn’t your question an example of, for lack of a better way to put it, making it about you and not about the Megans of the world?

It seems to me that that’s sort of the crux of the debate, such as it is.

No, I don’t agree it makes it “about me,” nor do I agree her reaction is unfair.

In the example of Ryan interrupting Megan, and my saying, “I’d like to hear what Megan has to say,” I can’t think of any reasonable grounds for Megan to be upset with my intervention. Paradoxically, this isn’t about Megan – it’s about me wanting to hear a colleague’s uninterrupted thoughts.

But if I call out Ryan for staring at Megan’s breasts, and Ryan later accuses Megan of not having the guts to tell him directly if his conduct upset her, Megan might well say that she wanted to do just that: handle the situation on her own, and not be infantilized by a male “coming to her rescue.” She might well say that by stepping in, I was robbing her of her agency to act on her own. That they are her breasts, not mine, and that she is perfectly capable of deciding how to handle anyone’s stares, and whether or not such stares are welcome.

Those complaints would seem to be about her, not me – and they seem fair.

[Jimmy_Chitwood]

Go look at posts 26 and 29 again, for the first time, Shodan.

[Jimmy_Chitwood]

@Bricker

But if I call out Ryan for staring at Megan’s breasts, and Ryan later accuses Megan of not having the guts to tell him directly if his conduct upset her, Megan might well say that she wanted to do just that: handle the situation on her own, and not be infantilized by a male “coming to her rescue.” She might well say that by stepping in, I was robbing her of her agency to act on her own. That they are her breasts, not mine, and that she is perfectly capable of deciding how to handle anyone’s stares, and whether or not such stares are welcome.

Those complaints would seem to be about her, not me – and they seem fair.

OK. I definitely misread your post, then.

It’s not that you think the problem is that you would be “excoriated” for “white knighting” by Megan; it’s that you think you’d actually be in the wrong. You really would be white knighting.

I think that’s a stumper. In context, right, zweisamkeit was answering Czarcasm’s question about “what am I (a man) supposed to do?” And Dangerosa was expounding on it.

In other words, these women are saying “this is what we’d appreciate from you dudes in this arena.” And the thing that they’d appreciate is being specifically contrasted with telling them who and what the real problems are, and how to address them, and what they should think and do about the problem. Presumably, I think it’s fair to say, Dangerosa was suggesting that if she were Megan, this is what she would want - next time you talk to the guy point out that he’s an obvious ogler, and that people see that shit, and that this is a stereotypical boorish behavior for a reason.

But in response to their answer to the question… you’re telling them nope, this is what women should think if I act like that?

(on edit: and, of course, shoutout to you with the face’s thread from a while back: now two guys are debating in this thread about women about how guys should act regarding this issue about women. Complicated world.)

[Dangerosa]

@Bricker

No, I don’t agree it makes it “about me,” nor do I agree her reaction is unfair.

In the example of Ryan interrupting Megan, and my saying, “I’d like to hear what Megan has to say,” I can’t think of any reasonable grounds for Megan to be upset with my intervention. Paradoxically, this isn’t about Megan – it’s about me wanting to hear a colleague’s uninterrupted thoughts.

But if I call out Ryan for staring at Megan’s breasts, and Ryan later accuses Megan of not having the guts to tell him directly if his conduct upset her, Megan might well say that she wanted to do just that: handle the situation on her own, and not be infantilized by a male “coming to her rescue.” She might well say that by stepping in, I was robbing her of her agency to act on her own. That they are her breasts, not mine, and that she is perfectly capable of deciding how to handle anyone’s stares, and whether or not such stares are welcome.

Those complaints would seem to be about her, not me – and they seem fair.

Don’t make it about her, make it about the professionalism of the workplace. In a professional workplace, co-workers don’t ogle each other. At least, not in such a way that its obvious. I wouldn’t think that a professional man interested in working in an environment were women are treated respectfully would find that acceptable any more than a woman would.

Or maybe, in fact all men do think its ok to ogle women in the workplace? In which case, it shouldn’t be at all surprising that the YesAllWomen tag got traction.

[Czarcasm]

@Dangerosa

Don’t make it about her, make it about the professionalism of the workplace. In a professional workplace, co-workers don’t ogle each other. At least, not in such a way that its obvious. I wouldn’t think that a professional man interested in working in an environment were women are treated respectfully would find that acceptable any more than a woman would.

Or maybe, in fact all men do think its ok to ogle women in the workplace? In which case, it shouldn’t be at all surprising that the YesAllWomen tag got traction.

(bolding mine)Was that last bit really necessary? Talk about poisoning the well.

If you want men to think about it as professionalism in the workplace, then wouldn’t reporting such incidents to the Human Resources Department be the proper thing to do?

[Bricker]

@Dangerosa

Don’t make it about her, make it about the professionalism of the workplace. In a professional workplace, co-workers don’t ogle each other. At least, not in such a way that its obvious. I wouldn’t think that a professional man interested in working in an environment were women are treated respectfully would find that acceptable any more than a woman would.

I think the key problem I have here is “…At least, not in such a way that its obvious.”

I wouldn’t have any problem whatsoever speaking to someone who was staring at another colleague’s chest with bulging eyes and a chin full of drool.

But here was the line that sparked my reaction:

@Dangerosa

If you notice that Ryan talks to Megan’s chest, say “you know, I’ve noticed…and if I’ve noticed…Megan has noticed…talk to her face.”

That’s a long way from necessarily describing conduct that is blatantly obvious. I am certainly able to notice more subtle gestures that certainly fall short of “ogling.”

[Dangerosa]

@Bricker

I think the key problem I have here is “…At least, not in such a way that its obvious.”

I wouldn’t have any problem whatsoever speaking to someone who was staring at another colleague’s chest with bulging eyes and a chin full of drool.

But here was the line that sparked my reaction:

That’s a long way from necessarily describing conduct that is blatantly obvious. I am certainly able to notice more subtle gestures that certainly fall short of “ogling.”

I’d say if you’ve noticed, its crossed the line from a glance to ogling. Accidentally looking doesn’t merit comment, the point at which you notice they are having a conversation with her bra, then that’s not discreet.

How much looking at a man’s package or ass does a woman have to do in the workplace before you get uncomfortable? (For me, it wouldn’t be much). And for some men, this brings this sort of thing home - how much checking out a man’s package would another MAN have to do before you’d get uncomfortable. That’s the point at which you should be saying something about a coworker who looks at another coworkers chest. In other words, long before Roger Rabbit’s eyes pop out of his head and you get the “ooohgah oohgah” sound from the sound guy. If you are waiting for that, then you aren’t really interested in helping be part of the solution - which was the question - what can I do to help. (Now, because this is the Dope, if there are extenuating circumstances - the guy in question is 4’ 2" tall or in a wheelchair and therefore regularly spends his time looking at everyone’s chest - judgment is required).

Its great that there are guys who don’t rape and men treat women with respect in the workplace - but we aren’t going to hand out medals for acting like a decent human being. If you want to take the next step - and honestly - you aren’t under any obligation to do so other than the general societal obligation to try and make the world a better place for your fellow human beings, these are things you could do - because these are things that many women experience and many men are around to see and act when they see it.

[Shodan]

@Jimmy_Chitwood

Go look at posts 26 and 29 again, for the first time, Shodan.

It wouldn’t be for the first time, and it also isn’t necessary, since my post was a response to post #150. Perhaps you didn’t read that one.

Regards,
Shodan

[Jimmy_Chitwood]

It had very close to nothing to do with post 150, which was not about or about anything analogous to anyone saying “I’m not a potential rapist.”