This is gonna piss some people (men) off, I can already tell…
This is an excellent point and I think it demonstrates really well what people mean by “all men”
Even tho I love men as much as the next straight girl…bear for me, please
You must log in or register to comment.
“Party” usually stands for “drinking alcohol with random marginals”, and not for “3 friends gather together at home, eat cookies and peacefully play minecraft”.
No matter the sex, I would bring up my child in such a way they wouldn’t ever need or want to do that kind of destructive stuff to begin with. And if my child finds actually good people as their friends, there wouldn’t be a need to worry for their safety so much.
Women are more vulnerable than men, but you should avoid places where people would want to exploit your vulnerabilities in the first place.
Not all men go to those parties. Even girls that would go there shouldn’t be trusted.
Yea I’m sure polarizing statements will help people come together and respect each other.
Except this wasn’t polarizing, because in most groups, the hypothetical setup doesn’t hold water.
We saw that fraternity where all the boys did the wrong thing. So sometimes the group fucks it all up. But there are countless other occasions where the bad boys don’t do jack shit, because they know that the other boys around them would regulate in a second.
So, what’s the general conclusion of this post? I think it’s, “Don’t go to frat parties alone.” or something like that. Identify the high-risk environments and be careful, because there’s some fucked up communities out there.
OK, but if women stopped having babies, then there would be no men, so its really their fault
Miisha based.
Larger percent of men is dangerous than it is of women? “Thanks” to the cultural legacy, absolutely.
Are all men dangerous? Absolutely not.
Do such blanket statements, no matter about which group we’re talking about, bring only harm? Absolutely. By making such statements as OOP, you’re alienating the adequate portion of the accused group, only sparkling further unnecessary tribalization to the point of extremity, giving rise to dipshits like andrew tate. Please stop doing the first part of “divide and conquer” for someone else to take advantage and do the second one.
Finally, those statements are just sexist, not much better than racism, homo- or any other such phobia. To check, you have to replace the word “men” in the quoted text with a name of ethnicity, or minority.
All men. Yes. All men. It’s all men until patriarchy is abolished.
The men who are radicalized into being misogynists aren’t victims. They become like that because they know it benefits them to abuse women with impunity and burden them with all of the social and emotional labor. The only way to convince men otherwise is unyielding belligerence to make it not worth the cost.
They become like that because they know it benefits them to abuse women with impunity and burden them with all of the social and emotional labor.
No, it’s because they think it will benefit them. And because it’s simpler for them to do that, than comprehend that in reality there’s no “men and women”, only “people”. It’s not an attempt at shifting all the emotional and social labor to women, it’s a very twisted and fucked up attempt to do the said labor. An attempt of someone who never did it before.
And right now, you’re treating all men as if they’re the exact copies of each other, because you think it will benefit you. And because classifying people into broad categories is always simpler, than accounting for all the slight variations.
What i’m saying is, people generally tend to do the things they deem beneficial either for themselves, or for the group they care about. Your accusation sounds kinda hypocritical, because you’re pretty much doing the same, while turning blind eye to the harm you’re doing. Even the results are pretty much the same — neither their, nor your goals are realized, it’s just that now both you and them look simultaneously feral and mental to the outsiders, and both you and them just divide the already-divided-more-than-ever society even further. The only difference is that your radical ideology wasn’t started by a dipshit, and you (probably) had good intentions somewhere along the line, or at least i’d prefer to believe so.
I honestly wonder what shit you had to go through to end up having such a fucked up position. Like, I get the general sentiment, and I agree with it. Patriarchy is harmful, doesn’t benefit neither men nor women, and should be abolished. Do you plan to do that tho? Because it absolutely would require consensual effort on both sides to accomplish it. Belligerence won’t get you that, only make the last allies leave you, one by one.
I think you really need to switch your focus from this problem for some time. Given that you’re actually a good person with initially good intentions, you’re probably deeply morally-exhausted.
If you don’t avoid absolutes, your statement will always be subject to criticism.
Did we learn nothing from Star Wars?
“Only a sith deals in absolutes”
I don’t get it, honestly.
The answer is yes, among a group of boys that my daughter decided were safe enough to be around, most of them would absolutely intervene.
Everyone acting like somehow most men are sneaky predators who will slip their dick in the minute no one is watching. The vast majority of men would absolutely intervene.
The hesitation is an entirely natural and appropriate risk assessment.
Me: Would you let your daughter drive on a country road at night?
Him: (hesitates)
The answer is yes, among a group of boys that my daughter decided were safe enough to be around
This is such an important distinction. Thank you for calling it out.
You’re using the same argument racist southerners use against black Americans
Ackchyually all lives matter.
Ackchyually not all cops are bastards.
Anti-tankies, clean up your Nazi bar.
I’ve never seen some of these users before. They’re all coming out of the woodwork to bring their idealist interpretations of feminism.
There are some boys who would step in, but they aren’t likely to be at those sorts of parties to begin with.
This is the same reason nobody in the group chat in the cornell case spoke up, everyone in it was almost certainly already known to be trusted to not speak up about such things, or be actively interested. Nobody that would have told the authorities would have been allowed in, even though many guys (likely even a decent amount of college frat guys) would have spoken up if they were in the chat. They would never have been invited in the first place
Yes, it becomes a bit of a tautology almost. “Not all men, just the ones that are those type of man and the ones ok with hanging around those type of man”.
There’s this problem with “not all men, but always a man” where making it an absolute makes it literally not true and so there’s pushback from people who you actually want to bring on board. It’s that fine line of creating a pithy slogan that’s inflammatory/engaging enough to spread but hopefully not too inaccurate as to undermine the message. “Not literally always a man but a depressingly high number because all you’d need is one counter example in all of human history to disprove it and those are happening daily just at far lower rates than what we’re trying to bring attention to” just doesn’t have the same ring to it.
“Black lives matter” really could’ve been “Black lives matter too” and I think it would’ve had much more goodwill and broad agreement, but probably wouldn’t have been as viral either.
Yep. Part of being a feminist/ally/non-bigot/whatever is resisting the temptation to “um ackchyually” stuff like that too much, even when it hurts or seems unfair.
I think you’re right. And…that’s just brutal, honestly
Yep. I wonder if that’s another reason why things like online-centric relationships have become more common since people who could be bullied or intimidated for not following the crowd can interact with others in a safer way.
It’s not all men, in the same way that not all racoons have rabies.
If you get bitten by a racoons, are you going to say “not all racoons”, or are you going to get a rabies shot?
“Not all men, but enough that you need to treat it like it’s all men” doesn’t quite have the same ring to it.
If you get bitten by a racoons, are you going to say “not all racoons”, or are you going to get a rabies shot?
Get a shot, because a raccoon that bit you is overwhelmingly likely to be rabid.
“Not all men, but enough that you need to treat it like it’s all men” doesn’t quite have the same ring to it.
You don’t need to though. You choose to based on your own experiences and biases. When someone says it’s not all men they are basing that on their experiences and biases.
Neither “men” nor “women” are a monolith.
Stuff like this disappointing. It is frustrating to feel that how I was born makes me something to be feared.
Are we better to live in a society where women fear all men? Is it even possible to change society in a way where even some men are considered “safe”?
You’re completely misinterpreting it. Yes, once the society has changed then men can change, before then they are right to be feared.
I just want to point out that the sexual assault by women on men is not properly documented and studied anywhere. Yes, it happens, and we wouldn’t be having this conversation if the true numbers were public knowledge. This one-sided vilification is the result of one-sided counting.
RAINN tracks sexual assaults of all victims. Please don’t spread misinformation.
It is underreported for sure, just like all sexual violence cases, but it is tracked and it is important for men’s and boy’s voices and stories to be heard.
Sexual violence against men and boys is often overlooked, but police files show that it happens across multiple types of reported sex crimes.
Nationwide, in 11% of reported rapes, the victim is male.
Every survivor deserves to be recognized, believed, and supported. Naming sexual violence against men and boys helps make sure fewer survivors are left out of the conversation.
18% of U.S. men experience verbal sexual harassment at work or in public during their lifetimes.
The harm may not always be visible, but it can still affect a person’s sense of safety, dignity, trust, and control. 14
I don’t feel like we make it better by also trying to fear women. I also don’t want to make it so folks are just giving up on vigilance because everyone is bad.
Some people have a very good sense of when people or situations are dangerous and other folks do not have that. I think what I’d ideally want is to help figure out how to identify that and maybe even improve it for folks in safe and healthy ways?
Removed by mod
I was going to post this as a reply, but I decided to make it a top comment since it’s more a comment about the post itself.
I am not gonna be the best at explaining myself, and I am feeling hurt from this so I am a bit emotional, but here goes.
I try my best to be an ally. I speak up when things aren’t right or people are uncomfortable wherever I am. I haven’t been in any real situations where I have had to physically intervene, but that’s more because I am a homebody and I don’t generally go to clubs or parties where I don’t know anyone.
I do hurt from this, so I don’t like how you assume I wouldn’t. I don’t believe I am in the group that is meant by “all men”, because I have done the right thing in the past. However, that doesn’t stop it from hurting.
What I interpret from the posted meme is that there is no room for discussion. All men are bad no matter what. I understand the point being made that any one random man has a greater than 50/50 chance to be bad and that the stakes are too high to take a chance.
What I understand from reading this post and it’s conversation in general is that I need to continue being an ally, but that when I see anyone say “all men” I just need to shut up and accept it.
I’m not going to stop being an ally or doing the right thing just because it hurts, but I will stop talking about it since it just comes of as comparing traumas which I don’t want to do or be seen as doing. I will say it does make me want to talk less about my feelings in general though.
I just wanted to put what I feel about this out there so I can let it go. I don’t want or intend for anyone to think I am making this about me, or that men have it as bad as women in any way. Sorry for posting this I guess.
Hey, everyone’s just explaining things and I just felt that its important for you to know; you’re kind. Thank you for being a good person. <3
You should be okay as a man with women complaining about men like this. You should be able to complain about men like that.
I’ve taken to reframing it. It never has been “all men”, but it 100% is ALL women.
I’ve given up friendships because they were shitty to women. I’m not among the “all men” in my estimation. But EVERY woman I know has had an experience that could be applied to the “all men” thing.
I’m not going to tell women how to voice their experience, but I’ve had enough of these conversations to understand what (I believe) is actually meant.
It’s sort of like police. ACAB. One apple ruins the bunch. Occasionally there will be a good news story of a cop doing something good. That’s like 1 in 1000 stories. So until otherwise proven, ACAB.
The same allegory applies to men. Every woman had a story about being SAed. I literally have not met a woman that doesn’t have an SA story. I don’t meet many men who have an “I stopped my bros from SAing a woman”.
It’s usually, I walked away. Or, I cut him off. Woman hear this as “you silently accepted the behavior”.
Like ACAB, sexism is structural; it’s systemic. Some people don’t know how to think systemically/structurally, and some pretend not to know how, because they believe that they benefit from patriarchy (or white supremacy, or private ownership of the means of production).
I just need to shut up and accept it.
Fuck that, misandrism is not acceptable. OP should focus her hate more intentionally.
misandrism is like when white people say it makes them sad when you call them a kkkrakkker.
You use the DSA logo as your avatar while taking misandry seriously. Are you sure you’re not just a centrist Democrat?
The problem with any content like this is that it’s basically a scissor statement (or like “the dress”). It’s optimized for engagement through strategic ambiguity. (Not that the author necessarily consciously chose that, but platforms certainly encourage it.)
If you’re a woman looking at that, you resolve the ambiguity in favor of “this is talking about cultural forces that — though their exact nature is an accident of history — reliably act upon every single member of the culture who is socialized as a man”.
And if you’re a man looking at the same text, you resolve the ambiguity more like “this is taking a biologically essentialist view of social behavior that is actually entirely contingent on the individual, their history, their environment, and a dozen other variables”.
Both of those are fair opinions, whose opposing side is very difficult to defend. But they’re two entirely different conversations, and when you prime people to have one of those two conversations and then stick them in the same room, nothing productive will come of it.
Part of the issue is that the thought experiment set out in this post doesn’t quite work to demonstrate what it claims. To prove the hard claim, the father would have to be allowed to choose which men are at this party.
To prove the hard claim, the father would have to be allowed to choose which men are at this party.
I know you didn’t mean to, but this went so dark so fast when I read it.
Boo-yah! I’m losing a friend because every conversation involves misunderstandings from living in two seperate realities of fact, and the misunderstandings only make sense later once we figure out which facts we disagree on; the only remedy I know involves getting clarification before asuming the worse interpretation.
I feel ya. When I was in a similar situation, I happened to listen to this and it helped me tremendously: https://youarenotsosmart.com/2018/12/17/yanss-143-how-to-talk-to-people-about-things/
