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.
And women are not owed being listened to and cared for, exactly.
We do it not because we owe something to each other, but because we're empathetic human beings able to listen and care for the discourse that is not about us. But we too have something to say, and it is directly relevant to the substance of the conversation.
And it gets more and more frustrating to see many women venting their anger without actually trying to listen up and see the other side of their story, gaining insights that are useful in combating the very issue they complain about. The solutions are there. It's just that no one actually cares for them.
Nothing good comes from a discourse when one relevant side is shushed every time they speak up. And this is the case.
Now, what is more important to you - venting anger and shifting blame? Or listening in search of insights?
I mean I think it's a pretty mutual like, set of actions that happens as a result of the initial framing of the conversation being like a stupid absurd obvious ragebait hypothetical more than like, a systematic failing in our society. Or, rather, I think the systematic failing of society is that these conversations are only allowed to come about, to blow up, out of those sorts of bad faith framings, rather than happening more naturally on even ground. I think that's the root cause, which I think affects both people groups, rather than it just being like a cultural failing that you might attribute to. I dunno, something else, something not as good as that.
Undoubtedly, the original hypothetical is a ragebait - but it truly succeeds at forming people's opinions, which is something that can't be ignored when groups of people are attacked.
I'd much rather not have those hypotheticals at all, indeed, and have neutral and positive talks.
You want someone to listen to you? You want "respect"? You have to give it first. That's how life works. You can either go around being respectful to other people, and if it's reciprocated then great but if not then you move on. Or you can go around being disrespectful to everyone until you get respect first, and people will rightfully treat you the same way.
Women are not venting to you. They are just venting. You are choosing to inject yourself into the conversation and demand that they listen to you first. You're demanding that they accept your solutions without question. And then you wonder why no one wants to listen to you. If you're unwilling to see that, that's your problem.
And that's what men in the feminist conversations normally do - listen and care and respect. I am no exception. (By the way, the reciprocity on that barely ever comes, but that's a topic for another conversation)
But this post isn't just a vent. Would it be correct for me to publicly ask: "would you rather be alone in a forest with a bear or a black person"?
Those questions contain a simple subtext, a comparison of men to dangerous animals, irrespective of any nuance, which is a form of attack on a social group. And I doubt someone just got interested in stats on what women would choose. This is an act of, at best, rude behavior, and at worst, an active hostility, and men see it as such.
This is not a singular case by any means, and it continuously reiterates in one form or the other.
And that's where we have to interject.
Stop comparing yourself to black men. This isn't about race.
Yeah, except....
You don't want to listen. You're just waiting for your turn to talk.
Again, you are purposely putting yourself in that group and getting offended by it. You are not being oppressed just because someone who doesn't even know you exist would rather not be alone with you.
Which is why women are choosing the bear. Unfortunately you don't seem to get that. You don't have to interject, because it's not about you.
Why should I not compare? Both are immutable traits people are born with, and both may serve as a basis for discrimination.
The single time men massively interject to stand up for themselves is immediately claimed as a hostile hijacking and an unwillingness to listen.
No, we do listen. But that doesn't mean we will seal our mouths when we are blatantly attacked.
Purposefully putting myself to what group? Memes? This is not some obscure radfem space, this is a general purpose Internet place. And what's happening here is not okay.
Because there is no difference between a white man and black man. On average, they are physically similar. But there is a massive physical difference between men and women. And before you interject with "ackshually, women can rape men too." No one is disputing that. But how it is done and how often it happens is vastly different. Violent rape is a legitimate concern for every single woman, whether you want to accept it or not.
I literally pointed out what group I was referring to.
You claim that you're willing to listen, but you insist that women listen to you and accept your solutions without question. You claim you're being attacked, when women are asked the question on camera without directing it at any specific person. You claim women are wrong to feel that way, without ever asking why they feel that way and what experiences lead to that decision. You claim you're standing up for yourself, against women that would choose to be alone with a bear rather than a random unknown man.
No one wants your solutions. No one asked for your solutions. No one is attacking you, because no one even knows who you are. No woman is wrong for feeling anything. And no woman should be forced to choose any man are not comfortable with, even if you're a "nice guy". It's not about you...
Black people were and often still are associated by many with criminal activity, which may make them seem more dangerous in the woods. But in case of black people, we know it's a dangerous stereotype stemming from the past (and sometimes current) conditions, discrimination, and irrational fear of whoever's "not us", reinforced by personal negative experience. With men, we somehow forget it, and start listing very similar justifications - that men are more often criminals, that they are animalistic and dangerous (didn't we hear that somewhere already?), while ignoring the root causes of the issues at hand.
Besides, here you agree with black people it's not just "people venting", it is an attack. So, how does it all work for you if the same directed at men is not?
We can always try to justify hatred and discrimination, while absolutely ignoring the fact there are way better predictors of dangerous behavior than race, gender or any such group. And, similarly, we can keep our eyes closed on the issues that lay at the core of the problem. We know the factors that go into criminal behaviors of black neighborhoods, and we know it's not black people being bad. We don't properly explore, discuss and address the drivers of dangerous behaviors in men, though.
Oh, so I purposefully putting myself to males? Sorry, that's an immutable trait.
No one's forcing women to choose any man. They do them, they can do however they feel in regards to their own boundaries, and we should respect that. But them attacking men is not alright.
Black people have been enslaved and then treated like shit by racists for centuries. That's why they are associated with criminal activity, not because they actually commit more crimes compared to everyone else. It's not the same as the vast difference of men committing violent sexual assaults on women as opposed to women committing violent sexual assaults on men. The fact that you're trying to equate them just shows you're a racist as well.
You said that, not me.
Again, no one is attacking men. A bunch of women were asked on camera by a man, without warning, and they gave an off the cuff honest answer. You can't get upset with all women just because some made a choice you don't agree with. Especially not when that choice has nothing do with you, because they don't even know you exist. Seriously, get over yourself. It's not about you...
No, it's because they really did cause more crimes out of being in the desperate conditions, not due to their nature. And when those conditions got to improve, rates of criminal behaviors dropped too. Same would happen to a white population if they would end up in a ghetto. Similarly, the conditions that form criminal response in some men need to be addressed, if not out of respect, then at least because it actually works. When this was done to black people, the problem of black brutality disappeared as well. And I'm not referencing that out of racism - I literally imply racism doesn't hold any reasonable ground, that people are not born dangerous and that there are factors that influence their behaviors, and put it as an example of people being misguided in the judgment of others for a long time before coming to obvious conclusions that fixed the issue. We just had to listen to black people saying what to do all along.
Same with any oppressed groups. You understand their thinking, you address their needs and remove hostility, discrimination - and they just don't behave dangerously anymore. Muslims integrate amazingly in civilized and accepting societies (and they are amazing people!), revolutions don't happen when the worker's needs are met, etc. etc.
But when you ignore the issues, when you double down on hostility and discrimination, you get terrorism, you get black gangs, you get bloody revolutions, and yes, you have men that dream of restoring patriarchy.
My point is, you somehow make a difference between equal "venting" on black people and on men, even though we still talk about the absolute same act - publicly comparing people with some trait (race or gender) with bears in terms of how dangerous (i.e. bad) they are. And in both cases, this has consequences.
It's one thing to quickly answer an interview and the other to make a wave of shitposting about it, while turning it against men. And telling "it's not about you" is like telling "I don't care what you think of it, I'mma keep doing it anyway", which is not a basis for civil society. Nope, not gonna happen.
You are not being oppressed just because you're a man.
You're so very very close, but you just don't want to take that last step. So let's carry you the rest of the way.
We just had to listen to women saying what to do all along.
You're in a post filled with women sharing their SA stories and explanating why they choose the bear. Instead of crying that you're being attacked, why not try listening to them. Not suggest solutions, not tell that they are wrong for choosing the bear, not explaining how dangerous bears actually are, not taking things personally because these stories are not about you or what you would do. Just listen, and at least try to empathize. That's all. If you want to make a post to vent about how you're supposedly oppressed, go right ahead. But this post is not about you.
This post is far from being the first relating to the experience of sexual abuse, and I'm an active listener who is aware of the issues and experiences of women around it and sympathises with people who genuinely share their negative experiences, both women and men, without trying to incline with my own ideas.
This post is not that. It's a ragebait utilizing an attack that is designed to be easily discarded, posted in a community that is targeted at a general audience. They try to make point that men are and should be seen as more dangerous than bears.
In those circumstances, calling someone to listen and ignoring them telling you they see an attack in the way this is shaped is hypocritical at best.
As a wider point, I also say that we should listen not only to women (but to them too), but also to men, if we want to untangle the string of events that leads some men to abuse, similarly to how we need to hear out women when talking about abusive women developing those behaviors against their male partners, friends and others.
If your priority is prevention rather than pure shows of hostility, you better be a listener for both, regardless of the direction of abuse.
Yeah, and? So what if it's not the first one. There's no limit on the number of posts about sexual assault that women are allowed to create.
No, it's women sharing stories about why they choose the bear. You call it ragebait simply because you put yourself in the group that isn't being picked by women.
Yes, it is, which is why I don't understand why you keep doing it. This is not an attack against you. You've been told that several times now.
Fine. Great. Let's listen to men. But a post about how women are choosing the bear and why is not the place to insist that we must listen to men.
Right. Which is why you should stop talking about being attacked and just listen.