548
nuanceposting
(lemmy.cafe)
Important clarification/FAQ
I am not calling to coddle or excuse the behavior of bigoted men in any way!
I am calling to be kind and understanding to young men (often ages 10-20) who are very manipulable and succeptible to the massive anti feminist propaganda machine. Hope this clarifies that very important distinction. :)
Very good comments that express key points:
- Detailed summary of the situation if you're wondering what's going on
- The rhetorical value of the bear hypothetical and what this means for you
- One example of why the long-term rhetorical value of the hypothetical is poor, in the context of intersectionality
- What does disenfranchisement mean in this context?
- The importance of not asking women to tone down their expressions of fear and frustration
- "But why can't they just say it nicely?"
- The importance of participation in kindness toward young men, specifically outside the context of people speaking their experiences
Edit: This post has now been removed and restored twice. I want to encourage you all:
Be decent to one another
I think this post is a valuable thing given the current state of the Fediverse, please don't fuck it up for us by being toxic in the comments.
Those young men should also choose the bear. If we explained that to them, and why, maybe the next generation wouldn't need to.
Many do. Why is why we have MGTOW and Andrew Tate
Because...men....make up ~80% of all murder victims, in addition to 90% of the perpetrators? According to the UN's 2019 homicide study?
That's why men fall into frothing inceldom and whatever Andrew Tate is doing? Because they share statistically just as much risk regarding other men as women face from men, just for a predominantly different crime?
Because that's why they need to be choosing the bear, and that just doesn't sound right...
You're using the bear analogy wrong. If the bear analogy was about statistics, they'd choose the human because statistically speaking, many, many more people are helpful than harmful. Especially compared to a dangerous wild animal.
People pick the bear because they themselves have been hurt too many times or have heard of people being hurt too many times. There is a perception that the bear is safer.
That can go both ways. And often people choosing the bear can be in a vulnerable state, which the likes of Andrew Tate preys on.
By its nature, there can't be an "if." Any conversation based around assessed probability of violence will at some point necessarily revolve around violence statistics. One cannot make an accurate decision otherwise, and it would cease to be any sort of statement at all. Would you rather choose between gleeps or glorps.
You're not incorrect in the other points you're making. I highly appreciate them, they're well said, and you come off like you've given this considerable thought and attention. But the perception is there because it's also a reality. The stories everyone has or knows someone who has are not fairy tales far away wherever they film the news and, statistically speaking, a random bear in the vicinity is leagues more predictable than a human, less aggressive as a result, and less dangerous should it become aggressive on account of the possibility of rape and torture.
Given the choice -- while it isn't nearly as likely from an animal that doesn't know what humans are and mostly wants to avoid the whole mess as much as I do if allowed -- I would also elect to be killed by the bear. That should be giving people pause and encourage them to reflect on the current dynamic and what can be done to fix it, and I would charitably like to think that it does. I've also met people before and they tend to dig in when they hear things they don't already agree with instead of becoming as curious as they should, but I'd like to think that it does, at least for one person.
The way one deals with bears does not work for men, because there IS no reliable way to deal with men should they turn aggressive. Not even pepper spray, if they've experienced it before or are just particularly plucky that day. You're supposed to run afterwards because your assailant can and will fight through it in much the same way a bear will not. I learned both these facts at about the same age, and I'm angry about that, and I'm angrier that there's not a women in my family, or even a woman that I know, that hasn't been assaulted at least once and/or subsequently murdered.
Your standing argument about the whole deal, if I understand it, boils down to, "Yes, but how many men didn't rape you when they could have? Talking about your experiences is making them more likely to choose that path themselves out of insult, but probably if you're nice enough they'll rape you less." ...And I'm hoping you can see how that thought process sounds insultingly unhinged as well as being a little bit to the left of the point.
In painting it as only an overactive perception, you don't sound in my opinion like you think it's as pervasive as it actually is, or that it should be the center of the problem. Your trick of the light is my maternal grandmother, whose crime scene got me interested in forensics. My mom. Her friend, killed after the divorce went through. My best friend when she was eight. Me.
I already know the risks, and I usually don't get a say in whether I'm going to experience them. And yet, whenever I or anyone else ask why we as a society consider it completely normal to sell and carry Man Spray, more men than one would hope are going, "Violence? What violence? What you need to do is let your guard down around me specifically. I don't like it. You wouldn't want to keep making me upset."
In regards to Andrew Tate, my understanding is his followers flock to him (and similar ideologies) because he makes them feel like they belong somewhere, gives them a checklist to follow defining what success looks like, and someone to blame. His draw is the utter blowing emotional wasteland men are trapped in, still expected to be soulless robotic workers but bereft of the worth their role as Man Of The House used to have.
The role a lot of them were raised to fill doesn't exist anymore. A lot the things they were taught to value, women can provide for themselves if they even want those things at all. Can't ask for help with the crushing weight of it, because they either fear being or absolutely have been rejected for daring to try. Can't carry it alone, you'll shoot yourself eventually.
Their needs are very real, and a severe problem. The way they've tried to cure it isn't even a mistake, it's just that the group they turned to for belonging happened to be predatory.
That said, the statement, "Women are so used to being assaulted and beaten to death that they lowkey never stop scanning for threats and would like to know: what if y'all stopped that?" and the statement, "men are so isolated and emotionally under-served that they buy muscle cars and perhaps tiki torches about it" are still two very different things. I'd say one of those groups isn't meeting with violence nearly as often as the other, but they are. That's the problem.
What if we looked at why people keep picking the bear and took stock of what needs to be done? No... we'll just have more rage again. We had rage for dinner last night.
Woah woah woah, hold the fuck on for two fucking seconds.
First of all, as I said before, this shit goes both ways. Men do this too.
Secondly, I did NOT say that using our perceptions is a bad way to make decisions. Multiple experienced incidents and multiple stories can create a perception of danger, and that perception may be wrong at times, but it can also be dead on at critical moments. It is a survival tactic that serves people well in general.
Ah, sorry, I took it for granted that we were on the same page about it being irrational. Taking the worst experience you've ever had, and expecting it to happen all the time, is a trauma response. It's understandable, but it is in no way reasonable. I wish we could acknowledge that without women claiming we're dismissing their lived experiences.
It's a bit more complicated than simply taking the worst experiences someone has ever had.
Every experience, every story from friends, every story in the news, heck even portrayals in fiction, contribute to someone's perception of an event, object, person or even group.
Now place yourself in the position of your average woman. You hear rape stories on the news, probably known a few people that have been SA'd if it hasn't happened to you personally, and you've almost certainly had a few close calls at least. Are you telling me you wouldn't have your guard up?
Having your guard up is understandable and perfectly rational. Implying that all or most men are rapists is not rational at all. Saying that the average man is more dangerous than a bear is not rational at all. It's no more rational than someone who gets mugged by a black man suggesting that black people are criminal thugs.
Replace sex with race and you see how bad the viewpoint is.
I agree with your general point but I don't think these things are really comparable or exchangeable in any way. Or at least, not in that kind of way of like, word search, replace, kind of thing. More complicated than that, for the fact that they exist together and not separately. The whole like, white women accusing black men of being rapists in order to get them lynched because they're racist, thing, that exists on the same continuum, as a phenomenon, as the like, classic stats of male on female SA. Even on a larger scale the like, using female sexuality and purity as a way to justify racism is a thing that exists on the same continuum. I dunno, I guess I'm just advocating for things to be more complicated than just like the word search replace shit, which I see quite a lot, and I think it misses the point a little bit. Still agree with your general point though.
yes, very true very true, your core point is true