FSTDT Forums
Community => Society and History => Topic started by: Ultimate Paragon on June 01, 2014, 10:48:09 am
-
Because I think we need a thread for this.
-
#notallmen
-
#YesAllCats (https://twitter.com/hashtag/YesAllCats?f=realtime&src=hash)
-
Actually the tag should be #EachEveryWoman now.
Because the woman who started the #YesAllWomen tag has been receiving death threats from the men who are trying to prove that not all men are like that, so she asked people to stop using it.
-
What is #YesAllWomen anyway? I think I've only heard of it from a few posts on this site.
-
What is #YesAllWomen anyway? I think I've only heard of it from a few posts on this site.
It's a tag and the Idea behind it is suppose to be
Not all men are harrasers, but yes all women will get harassed.
-
#YesAllCats (https://twitter.com/hashtag/YesAllCats?f=realtime&src=hash)
I can't tell, is this tag suppose to mock #YESALLWOMEN, function as an affectionate parody, or serve as some kind of analogy.
-
#MaybeSomePistolShrimp
-
I think it should be noted that 40% of domestic violence victims are male. It's an issue, certainly, just not a female-only issue.
-
I think it should be noted that 40% of domestic violence victims are male. It's an issue, certainly, just not a female-only issue.
That's true, but I think at the moment the focus is more on women specific issues, it's sort of like how after a gay kid kills himself we tend to focus on suicide among gay teens.
-
I think it should be noted that 40% of domestic violence victims are male. It's an issue, certainly, just not a female-only issue.
That's true, but I think at the moment the focus is more on women specific issues, it's sort of like how after a gay kid kills himself we tend to focus on suicide among gay teens.
Duly noted.
-
What is #YesAllWomen anyway? I think I've only heard of it from a few posts on this site.
It's a tag and the Idea behind it is suppose to be
Not all men are harrasers, but yes all women will get harassed.
I can sympathize with men that get defensive when a blanket description like "could be a rapist" is applied to them. Perhaps a not-so-hypothetical analogy would help illustrate the point:
"Not all mentally ill people are violent, but yes all neurotypicals must assume otherwise for our safety."
It's not a productive way to include them in the conversation.
-
#YesAllCats (https://twitter.com/hashtag/YesAllCats?f=realtime&src=hash)
I can't tell, is this tag suppose to mock #YESALLWOMEN, function as an affectionate parody, or serve as some kind of analogy.
Of course, most of us still remember Social Justice Wario, once upon a time something several of us considered funny until we realized that the term "Social Justice Warrior" was intended to demonize rational minded people, not just mock some thin-skinned people who go apeshit over pictures of meat.
Of course, the origin of this parody hashtag stems from 4Chan, and a majority of that site's populace are openly misogynistic, sexually frustrated loonies. So...
-
A good rule of thumb, hashtag spam masquerading as actual political activism is about as meaningful and generally worthy of your time as the average fart.
-
I think it should be noted that 40% of domestic violence victims are male. It's an issue, certainly, just not a female-only issue.
That's true, but I think at the moment the focus is more on women specific issues, it's sort of like how after a gay kid kills himself we tend to focus on suicide among gay teens.
Is it really true that 40% of domestic violence victims are men?
-
I think it should be noted that 40% of domestic violence victims are male. It's an issue, certainly, just not a female-only issue.
That's true, but I think at the moment the focus is more on women specific issues, it's sort of like how after a gay kid kills himself we tend to focus on suicide among gay teens.
Is it really true that 40% of domestic violence victims are men?
Not just men, but boys too.
-
#YesAllCats (https://twitter.com/hashtag/YesAllCats?f=realtime&src=hash)
I can't tell, is this tag suppose to mock #YESALLWOMEN, function as an affectionate parody, or serve as some kind of analogy.
Of course, most of us still remember Social Justice Wario, once upon a time something several of us considered funny until we realized that the term "Social Justice Warrior" was intended to demonize rational minded people, not just mock some thin-skinned people who go apeshit over pictures of meat.
Of course, the origin of this parody hashtag stems from 4Chan, and a majority of that site's populace are openly misogynistic, sexually frustrated loonies. So...
Wait, you're saying cats are misogynistic, sexually frustrated loonies?
-
Oh, I really meant 4Chan. Last time I heard, someone told me cats were "antisocial" creatures.
-
Oh, I really meant 4Chan. Last time I heard, someone told me cats were "antisocial" creatures.
They're not. At least, not most of them. Sure, they're aloof and detached, but they can be very loving.
I think now's a good time to point out the difference between "asocial" and "antisocial". Asocial means you're introverted. Antisocial means you're an asshole.
-
My cat greets me at the door often enough, and he seeks me out for company, so yeah.
Also stray/feral housecats will form matriarchal packs. So, quite social, actually.
Also cats will go out of their way to hide their waste (unless they're mad at you - or sick). Dogs, on the other hand, are quite proud of their waste.
Cats win, in my book.
-
Oh, I really meant 4Chan. Last time I heard, someone told me cats were "antisocial" creatures.
I know.
-
1. I used the term "antisocial" correctly. You know, the typical impression that cats are psychotic assholes.
2. This was coming from my sister's boyfriend, who had a bad experience with their parent's house cat. Of course I know he's biased, and he even admitted it.
-
#ProbablyMostOstriches
-
#NotTheBees
-
#MaybeSomeOfTheHamsters
-
#CertainlyManyLionesses
-
#AllTheMongols
-
Staph.
-
#Staph
EDIT:
What is #YesAllWomen anyway? I think I've only heard of it from a few posts on this site.
It's a tag and the Idea behind it is suppose to be
Not all men are harrasers, but yes all women will get harassed.
I can sympathize with men that get defensive when a blanket description like "could be a rapist" is applied to them. Perhaps a not-so-hypothetical analogy would help illustrate the point:
"Not all mentally ill people are violent, but yes all neurotypicals must assume otherwise for our safety."
It's not a productive way to include them in the conversation.
Funny, you don't seem to have a problem doing this with groups you don't like.
-
#Staph
EDIT:
What is #YesAllWomen anyway? I think I've only heard of it from a few posts on this site.
It's a tag and the Idea behind it is suppose to be
Not all men are harrasers, but yes all women will get harassed.
I can sympathize with men that get defensive when a blanket description like "could be a rapist" is applied to them. Perhaps a not-so-hypothetical analogy would help illustrate the point:
"Not all mentally ill people are violent, but yes all neurotypicals must assume otherwise for our safety."
It's not a productive way to include them in the conversation.
Funny, you don't seem to have a problem doing this with groups you don't like.
Ummm, mentally I'll people are twice as likely too be murdered as they are to murder someone.
As for the not all men defense: the reason it's stupid is because it'll generally be used when someone obviously doesn't think "All men are like that."
And for the "Could be a rapist" thing, if we're referring to Tumblrina saying how this guy dating this girl "might be a rapist" then that is stupid. If we mean women who takes this line of thinking when dealing with people you meet at bars and other similar situations then it is okay.
-
Then explain #KillAllMen
-
Then explain #KillAllMen
Are we seriously equating radfems with all feminists?
-
Then explain #KillAllMen
Are we seriously equating radfems with all feminists?
That sounds like a suspiciously #NotAllFeminists attitude. Radfems are the poisoned M&Ms.
-
Then explain #KillAllMen
Are we seriously equating radfems with all feminists?
That sounds like a suspiciously #NotAllFeminists attitude. Radfems are the poisoned M&Ms.
Wow that sure is some false equivalency there. Let me explain something to you.
Radical feminists are very vocal in what they say. You can identify them from a mile away. In fact, what defines a radical feminist is what they say. I've yet to hear of a mass amount of rapes and abuse towards men by radfems, other than maybe being yelled at on the internet.
The problem with #NotAllMen is that, quite frankly, no one is saying all men are rapists, and the people that do are not speaking for the entire #YesAllWomen/#EachEveryWoman tag, though you sure love to give them that much credence whenever it benefits you.
Quite frankly, yes, some men ARE like that. And they don't have bright shiny labels that they apply to themselves to make them clearly visible.
Fact is, women in this country DO suffer a lot at the hands of men. Do you deny this fact?
Now, how much have YOU suffered at the hands of feminists? Been yelled at maybe? Do you think that's equivalent to knowing that any man could rape you and get off scot free?
Can you honestly claim that the two are, at all, equivalent?
-
Then explain #KillAllMen
...what are you even trying to say?
Please explain.
I mean, I did say MOST of the time.
-
Then explain #KillAllMen
Are we seriously equating radfems with all feminists?
That sounds like a suspiciously #NotAllFeminists attitude. Radfems are the poisoned M&Ms.
Wow that sure is some false equivalency there. Let me explain something to you.
Radical feminists are very vocal in what they say. You can identify them from a mile away. In fact, what defines a radical feminist is what they say. I've yet to hear of a mass amount of rapes and abuse towards men by radfems, other than maybe being yelled at on the internet.
The problem with #NotAllMen is that, quite frankly, no one is saying all men are rapists, and the people that do are not speaking for the entire #YesAllWomen/#EachEveryWoman tag, though you sure love to give them that much credence whenever it benefits you.
Quite frankly, yes, some men ARE like that. And they don't have bright shiny labels that they apply to themselves to make them clearly visible.
Fact is, women in this country DO suffer a lot at the hands of men. Do you deny this fact?
Now, how much have YOU suffered at the hands of feminists? Been yelled at maybe? Do you think that's equivalent to knowing that any man could rape you and get off scot free?
Can you honestly claim that the two are, at all, equivalent?
Point taken. I will refine my earlier analogy:
Not all owners of assault weapons are mass murderers, but yes all humans run the risk of being mowed down by a few "poisoned M&Ms", as it were. Would you be fine with them carrying their weapons into a public space? Would you want these guys showing up in an elevator with you?
(http://www.rawstory.com/rs/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Open-carry-Chipotle-even-via-Facebook-615x345.png)
-
Yeah, I would be scared. Open carry scares me. Does this surprise you?
-
Are those the guys that got kicked out of a restaurant because they didn't allow guns on their property?
-
Point taken. I will refine my earlier analogy:
Not all owners of assault weapons are mass murderers, but yes all humans run the risk of being mowed down by a few "poisoned M&Ms", as it were. Would you be fine with them carrying their weapons into a public space? Would you want these guys showing up in an elevator with you?
(http://www.rawstory.com/rs/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Open-carry-Chipotle-even-via-Facebook-615x345.png)
If a "poisoned M&M" plans on mowing down scores of people, I don't think they have many worries about whether or not they can legally bring their weapons into public.
-
This has nothing to do with the original topic, we have F&B if you need to work out your sexual tension.
-
Pretty sure the only sexual tension going on here is in Lizard's head.
Confessions of love can go in F&B, I don't mind.
-
Pretty sure the only sexual tension going on here is in Lizard's head.
I have actually written a 200+ page fanfic exploring what happens when you two must come to terms with your feelings for one another, Erin Jaeger and Dean Winchester appear in chapter 4.
-
Which two? Me and Chew, or Chit and Chew?
EDIT:
And TheFrogman manages to say something ten times better than I could. Yes, this is relevant. (http://thefrogman.me/post/87729857653/oh-you-say-not-all-muslims-are-terrorists-imagine-a)
oh, you say not all muslims are terrorists? imagine a bowl of m&m's.... oh, you say not all black people are criminals? imagine a bowl of m&m's.... oh, you say not all women cut their husbands' penises off and murder them while they sleep? imagine a bowl of m&m's.... oh, you say not all jewish people are greedy? imagine a bowl of m&m's....
My original quote was…
You say not all men are monsters?
Imagine a bowl of M&Ms. 10% of them are poisoned.
Go ahead. Eat a handful.
Not all M&Ms are poison.
This was merely an explanation of why women and female presenting folks are cautious of men. Especially after recent events.
But you want to take an analogy about an oppressive group and try substituting marginalized groups in their stead? I don’t see how that is the same.
I feel like you think you have a super clever “gotcha” point there, but honestly you are just being racist and using false equivalencies.
Try replacing men with other oppressive groups and suddenly the analogy works again.
Not all CEOs are corrupt?
Not all police use brutal force?
Not all of the conservative leadership are racist, sexist bags of crap?
Not all of the congressional committees for reproductive rights are chaired by a bunch of old white dudes?
Imagine a bowl of M&Ms. 98% of them are poison.
Throw them up in the air and move to the moon.
The analogy seems to still work when other oppressive groups are substituted. The way it was intended to be understood.
Men are saying that women have no reason to fear them and are bad people if they do. Yet every woman has experienced harassment. Catcalled in the street. Many have been groped. Many face constant sexism in the workplace. And have you seen what happens when a woman opens an OKCupid account? Worst of all, 1 in 6 have been sexually assaulted. That is an astounding statistic.
Talk to pretty much any woman and you will find that they have not just one story of men scaring the bejesus out of them… they have many. This is not an insignificant problem where they can throw caution to the wind and start trusting all the menfolk.
And when these shootings happened and it was revealed that a huge component of this person’s anger was that women rejected him, the prospect of merely rejecting the advances of men has become an even more frightening matter than it already was.
Fear is not something easily controlled and you want to tell women to turn it off like a light switch?
We are not properly educating our youth about consent. We are not properly teaching men that they have no entitlement to a woman’s body. We still have common phrases like, “Wearing her down” and “playing hard to get.” That Blurred Lines song was an anthem for dudebros across the nation.
Until we take major steps to destroy this attitude of entitlement, teach people that rejection is a normal part of life that should not be seen as some grave insult or a challenge to be conquered—woman and female presenting folks are going to have a cautious fear of men.
If you want to stop being seen as a danger, the onus is on us as men. We need to start teaching each other how to stop seeing women as prizes to be won. We need to eliminate this culture of entitlement.
-
Which two? Me and Chew, or Chit and Chew?
EDIT:
And TheFrogman manages to say something ten times better than I could. Yes, this is relevant. (http://thefrogman.me/post/87729857653/oh-you-say-not-all-muslims-are-terrorists-imagine-a)
oh, you say not all muslims are terrorists? imagine a bowl of m&m's.... oh, you say not all black people are criminals? imagine a bowl of m&m's.... oh, you say not all women cut their husbands' penises off and murder them while they sleep? imagine a bowl of m&m's.... oh, you say not all jewish people are greedy? imagine a bowl of m&m's....
My original quote was…
You say not all men are monsters?
Imagine a bowl of M&Ms. 10% of them are poisoned.
Go ahead. Eat a handful.
Not all M&Ms are poison.
This was merely an explanation of why women and female presenting folks are cautious of men. Especially after recent events.
But you want to take an analogy about an oppressive group and try substituting marginalized groups in their stead? I don’t see how that is the same.
I feel like you think you have a super clever “gotcha” point there, but honestly you are just being racist and using false equivalencies.
Try replacing men with other oppressive groups and suddenly the analogy works again.
Not all CEOs are corrupt?
Not all police use brutal force?
Not all of the conservative leadership are racist, sexist bags of crap?
Not all of the congressional committees for reproductive rights are chaired by a bunch of old white dudes?
Imagine a bowl of M&Ms. 98% of them are poison.
Throw them up in the air and move to the moon.
The analogy seems to still work when other oppressive groups are substituted. The way it was intended to be understood.
Men are saying that women have no reason to fear them and are bad people if they do. Yet every woman has experienced harassment. Catcalled in the street. Many have been groped. Many face constant sexism in the workplace. And have you seen what happens when a woman opens an OKCupid account? Worst of all, 1 in 6 have been sexually assaulted. That is an astounding statistic.
Talk to pretty much any woman and you will find that they have not just one story of men scaring the bejesus out of them… they have many. This is not an insignificant problem where they can throw caution to the wind and start trusting all the menfolk.
And when these shootings happened and it was revealed that a huge component of this person’s anger was that women rejected him, the prospect of merely rejecting the advances of men has become an even more frightening matter than it already was.
Fear is not something easily controlled and you want to tell women to turn it off like a light switch?
We are not properly educating our youth about consent. We are not properly teaching men that they have no entitlement to a woman’s body. We still have common phrases like, “Wearing her down” and “playing hard to get.” That Blurred Lines song was an anthem for dudebros across the nation.
Until we take major steps to destroy this attitude of entitlement, teach people that rejection is a normal part of life that should not be seen as some grave insult or a challenge to be conquered—woman and female presenting folks are going to have a cautious fear of men.
If you want to stop being seen as a danger, the onus is on us as men. We need to start teaching each other how to stop seeing women as prizes to be won. We need to eliminate this culture of entitlement.
I saw that today. Here's a response:
The analogy doesn’t work for any of those other groups…..Men “scaring the bejesus” out of you isn’t the same thing as actually being in danger. Racists probably have plenty of stories about black guys “scaring the bejesus” out of them. And “wearing someone down” is the exact opposite of entitlement. You don’t work for things you feel you are entitled to…
The most ironic thing about this statement is that the latter half of his response is what causes the former half a lot of the time. Women feel afraid and threatened because, a lot of the time, men will not let up, no matter what they do. You're talking about disregarding the desires, decisions, and comfort of women so you can continue to pursue them because you feel you deserve a chance with them. It's called "wearing them down" because that's literally what you're doing; you keep going at it until the woman either becomes too frustrated or too tired to fight you anymore. It shows a complete lack of respect. That's why some see it as "entitlement". When you work hard to buy a car or house, you're not undermining the wants and needs of those things because they're not alive. They can't say "no" and "stop". Women aren't objects to be "owned" or "won" after some "hard work". When they say "no", that should be the end of it, regardless of whether you feel you "deserve" a chance. You're not entitled to her, and you're not entitled to a chance with her, no matter how hard you "work at it".
-
...I really wish I could smack that person with a cluebat.
I really wish that there was a mystical club-shaped object out there that could instill actual knowledge and wisdom to people smacked with it. Along with pain. Mental pain over their previous stupidity. Physical pain over being hit with a club-shaped object.
-
...I really wish I could smack that person with a cluebat.
I really wish that there was a mystical club-shaped object out there that could instill actual knowledge and wisdom to people smacked with it. Along with pain. Mental pain over their previous stupidity. Physical pain over being hit with a club-shaped object.
Which person?
-
I really wish that there was a mystical club-shaped object out there that could instill actual knowledge and wisdom to people smacked with it. Along with pain. Mental pain over their previous stupidity. Physical pain over being hit with a club-shaped object.
It would certainly do away with the need for an education system. Just give kids a daily walloping from the ages of 6 to 18 (longer if they intend to pursue tertiary education) and they'll be well and and truly sorted when it comes time to enter the workforce.
-
...I really wish I could smack that person with a cluebat.
I really wish that there was a mystical club-shaped object out there that could instill actual knowledge and wisdom to people smacked with it. Along with pain. Mental pain over their previous stupidity. Physical pain over being hit with a club-shaped object.
We've all been there.
-
...I really wish I could smack that person with a cluebat.
I really wish that there was a mystical club-shaped object out there that could instill actual knowledge and wisdom to people smacked with it. Along with pain. Mental pain over their previous stupidity. Physical pain over being hit with a club-shaped object.
Which person?
The one that said this:
The analogy doesn’t work for any of those other groups…..Men “scaring the bejesus” out of you isn’t the same thing as actually being in danger. Racists probably have plenty of stories about black guys “scaring the bejesus” out of them. And “wearing someone down” is the exact opposite of entitlement. You don’t work for things you feel you are entitled to…
-
And TheFrogman manages to say something ten times better than I could. Yes, this is relevant. (http://thefrogman.me/post/87729857653/oh-you-say-not-all-muslims-are-terrorists-imagine-a)
oh, you say not all muslims are terrorists? imagine a bowl of m&m's.... oh, you say not all black people are criminals? imagine a bowl of m&m's.... oh, you say not all women cut their husbands' penises off and murder them while they sleep? imagine a bowl of m&m's.... oh, you say not all jewish people are greedy? imagine a bowl of m&m's....
My original quote was…
You say not all men are monsters?
Imagine a bowl of M&Ms. 10% of them are poisoned.
Go ahead. Eat a handful.
Not all M&Ms are poison.
This was merely an explanation of why women and female presenting folks are cautious of men. Especially after recent events.
But you want to take an analogy about an oppressive group and try substituting marginalized groups in their stead? I don’t see how that is the same.
I feel like you think you have a super clever “gotcha” point there, but honestly you are just being racist and using false equivalencies.
Try replacing men with other oppressive groups and suddenly the analogy works again.
Not all CEOs are corrupt?
Not all police use brutal force?
Not all of the conservative leadership are racist, sexist bags of crap?
Not all of the congressional committees for reproductive rights are chaired by a bunch of old white dudes?
Imagine a bowl of M&Ms. 98% of them are poison.
Throw them up in the air and move to the moon.
The analogy seems to still work when other oppressive groups are substituted. The way it was intended to be understood.
Men are saying that women have no reason to fear them and are bad people if they do. Yet every woman has experienced harassment. Catcalled in the street. Many have been groped. Many face constant sexism in the workplace. And have you seen what happens when a woman opens an OKCupid account? Worst of all, 1 in 6 have been sexually assaulted. That is an astounding statistic.
Talk to pretty much any woman and you will find that they have not just one story of men scaring the bejesus out of them… they have many. This is not an insignificant problem where they can throw caution to the wind and start trusting all the menfolk.
And when these shootings happened and it was revealed that a huge component of this person’s anger was that women rejected him, the prospect of merely rejecting the advances of men has become an even more frightening matter than it already was.
Fear is not something easily controlled and you want to tell women to turn it off like a light switch?
We are not properly educating our youth about consent. We are not properly teaching men that they have no entitlement to a woman’s body. We still have common phrases like, “Wearing her down” and “playing hard to get.” That Blurred Lines song was an anthem for dudebros across the nation.
Until we take major steps to destroy this attitude of entitlement, teach people that rejection is a normal part of life that should not be seen as some grave insult or a challenge to be conquered—woman and female presenting folks are going to have a cautious fear of men.
If you want to stop being seen as a danger, the onus is on us as men. We need to start teaching each other how to stop seeing women as prizes to be won. We need to eliminate this culture of entitlement.
To be honest, I think the whole "it works for oppressive groups" thing just shows that the analogy isn't doing anything other than reflecting existing feelings about the group. There's no point to making the analogy if you're not actually reacting to the analogous situation, just to the group to which the analogy is being applied.
Just say "I think it's fair to make some judgements about a group based on its worst members, but only for some groups". The M&M's are not clarifying the issue.
(actually this is a problem with a lot of analogy-based arguments)
-
And TheFrogman manages to say something ten times better than I could. Yes, this is relevant. (http://thefrogman.me/post/87729857653/oh-you-say-not-all-muslims-are-terrorists-imagine-a)
oh, you say not all muslims are terrorists? imagine a bowl of m&m's.... oh, you say not all black people are criminals? imagine a bowl of m&m's.... oh, you say not all women cut their husbands' penises off and murder them while they sleep? imagine a bowl of m&m's.... oh, you say not all jewish people are greedy? imagine a bowl of m&m's....
My original quote was…
You say not all men are monsters?
Imagine a bowl of M&Ms. 10% of them are poisoned.
Go ahead. Eat a handful.
Not all M&Ms are poison.
This was merely an explanation of why women and female presenting folks are cautious of men. Especially after recent events.
But you want to take an analogy about an oppressive group and try substituting marginalized groups in their stead? I don’t see how that is the same.
I feel like you think you have a super clever “gotcha” point there, but honestly you are just being racist and using false equivalencies.
Try replacing men with other oppressive groups and suddenly the analogy works again.
Not all CEOs are corrupt?
Not all police use brutal force?
Not all of the conservative leadership are racist, sexist bags of crap?
Not all of the congressional committees for reproductive rights are chaired by a bunch of old white dudes?
Imagine a bowl of M&Ms. 98% of them are poison.
Throw them up in the air and move to the moon.
The analogy seems to still work when other oppressive groups are substituted. The way it was intended to be understood.
Men are saying that women have no reason to fear them and are bad people if they do. Yet every woman has experienced harassment. Catcalled in the street. Many have been groped. Many face constant sexism in the workplace. And have you seen what happens when a woman opens an OKCupid account? Worst of all, 1 in 6 have been sexually assaulted. That is an astounding statistic.
Talk to pretty much any woman and you will find that they have not just one story of men scaring the bejesus out of them… they have many. This is not an insignificant problem where they can throw caution to the wind and start trusting all the menfolk.
And when these shootings happened and it was revealed that a huge component of this person’s anger was that women rejected him, the prospect of merely rejecting the advances of men has become an even more frightening matter than it already was.
Fear is not something easily controlled and you want to tell women to turn it off like a light switch?
We are not properly educating our youth about consent. We are not properly teaching men that they have no entitlement to a woman’s body. We still have common phrases like, “Wearing her down” and “playing hard to get.” That Blurred Lines song was an anthem for dudebros across the nation.
Until we take major steps to destroy this attitude of entitlement, teach people that rejection is a normal part of life that should not be seen as some grave insult or a challenge to be conquered—woman and female presenting folks are going to have a cautious fear of men.
If you want to stop being seen as a danger, the onus is on us as men. We need to start teaching each other how to stop seeing women as prizes to be won. We need to eliminate this culture of entitlement.
To be honest, I think the whole "it works for oppressive groups" thing just shows that the analogy isn't doing anything other than reflecting existing feelings about the group. There's no point to making the analogy if you're not actually reacting to the analogous situation, just to the group to which the analogy is being applied.
Just say "I think it's fair to make some judgements about a group based on its worst members, but only for some groups". The M&M's are not clarifying the issue.
(actually this is a problem with a lot of analogy-based arguments)
Why do analogies not work? Well picture this...
-
...I really wish I could smack that person with a cluebat.
I really wish that there was a mystical club-shaped object out there that could instill actual knowledge and wisdom to people smacked with it. Along with pain. Mental pain over their previous stupidity. Physical pain over being hit with a club-shaped object.
Which person?
The one that said this:
The analogy doesn’t work for any of those other groups…..Men “scaring the bejesus” out of you isn’t the same thing as actually being in danger. Racists probably have plenty of stories about black guys “scaring the bejesus” out of them. And “wearing someone down” is the exact opposite of entitlement. You don’t work for things you feel you are entitled to…
"Hi, I have never met a woman outside of hentai dating simulators!"
-
Personally, I think Frogman's analogy is kind of dumb, because he's assuming that men automatically have power over women. That's not true in reality. Besides, I think we can all agree that not all men are corporate executives, police officers, or politicians.
-
Personally, I think Frogman's analogy is kind of dumb, because he's assuming that men automatically have power over women.
I'm fairly certain he's not assuming this.
He's saying that we belong to an oppressive group. And as men enjoy many rights (including the right to walk down the street unharrassed) that many women don't get to enjoy, I think it's safe to say he hit the bullseye on this situation.
-
Relevant: http://takashi0.tumblr.com/post/87359456047/if-10-of-m-ms-are-poisoned-shouldnt-the-question-be (http://takashi0.tumblr.com/post/87359456047/if-10-of-m-ms-are-poisoned-shouldnt-the-question-be)
-
No one is saying that men are never victims of violence. We're saying that women have to face issues that men do not, and because pretty much every woman has faced some form of harassment from men (I know I have), we're not wrong to be wary of them.
-
I sympathize completely. However, to use that as an excuse to be wary of all men is just stupid.
-
Honestly, that post you linked us to was a clusterfuck of stuff.
I mean what does that title even mean? Is it saying we need to focus on the toxic environment surrounding rape culture and male entitlement, if so, why does OP not elaborate further on this point?
Does he dislike the when women turn men down website, if so why?
What's the ending even mean? He says he's talking about mass shootings in general but he seems to be describing Elliot's shooting in particular.
Is it pro or anti-feminists?
What is cats?
-
How many times have you deleted your previous post and replaced it?
-
How many times have you deleted your previous post and replaced it?
Many.
-
I sympathize completely. However, to use that as an excuse to be wary of all men is just stupid.
It's a survival mechanism UP, in lots of places (big cities, cons, ect.) being wary of men can keep you off the Missing Persons list.
I'd personally say that's more important than keeping guys comfortable.
-
One last thing: you don't agree with everything that post says, right UP?
-
Fucking Hel, Lizard, it sometimes takes a full day to respond, just be patient and wait, and use the edit button!
-
One last thing: you don't agree with everything that post says, right UP?
No I don't. For example, John Wayne Bobbitt deserved to have his penis cut off.
-
One last thing: you don't agree with everything that post says, right UP?
No I don't. For example, John Wayne Bobbitt deserved to have his penis cut off.
One last thing: you don't agree with everything that post says, right UP?
No I don't. For example, John Wayne Bobbitt deserved to have his penis cut off.
I meant how they were implying we should feel sorry for Eliot Rodgers and people who commit crimes against women. Or the start where they ask "how the 10% of m&ms (symbolic of rapists and abusers) got that way" what's this saying? Okay, granted I might be simply misunderstanding this post or something but at very least you have to admit it's a bit over complicated.
Lol, I suppose I could just be paranoid about Men's Rights activists talking about male victims, cuz a lot of the time it'll basically be saying in some manner or another "Shut up, your problems aren't important as long as someone else might have have them too!
-
I agree with you, we should not feel sorry for men like that. However, nor should we assume that 10% of men are rapists, abusers, or misogynistic shitheads.
I am also opposed to these idiots trying to shut up feminists by saying things like that. On the other hand, there are legitimate issues facing men.
-
Of course there are legitimate issues facing men. The only people denying that are the radfems.
However, bringing it up when women are talking about the fear they experience is diverting the issue.
Also, regarding the 10% statistic.
Judging from the original source, the 10% was just a random small percentage made up for the sake of an analogy.
Why are people taking it so personally? I mean I'm a guy and I'm not taking it personally because I know I'm not a rapist/PUA/creep, but I know other people don't know that.
-
I think when women talk about thinking of all men as potential rapists they mean they're doing so for security reasons, sort of like how a soldier in Afghanistan has to think of every discarded piece of trash as being a potential IED.
-
I think when women talk about thinking of all men as potential rapists they mean they're doing so for security reasons, sort of like how a soldier in Afghanistan has to think of every discarded piece of trash as being a potential IED.
Ah yes, because simply being female is as dangerous as being an active-duty soldier in a war zone. I'm sorry, I didn't realize this was Pakistan. It's hard to take people seriously when they make hyperbolic comparisons like that.
-
I sympathize completely. However, to use that as an excuse to be wary of all men is just stupid.
It's not about assuming every man will harm you. It's about being extremely aware of your surroundings when you're walking across a parking lot at night and see a guy approaching you. It's about questioning a guy's intentions when he starts becoming a little too friendly (and eventually sends you pornographic images of himself). It's about never leaving your drink unattended at a party because a guy may spike it so he can take advantage of you. I'm saying that there are extra things that women have to watch out for because there are men in this world who do those things.
I think when women talk about thinking of all men as potential rapists they mean they're doing so for security reasons, sort of like how a soldier in Afghanistan has to think of every discarded piece of trash as being a potential IED.
Ah yes, because simply being female is as dangerous as being an active-duty soldier in a war zone. I'm sorry, I didn't realize this was Pakistan. It's hard to take people seriously when they make hyperbolic comparisons like that.
The analogy could've been better, but he wasn't implying that the level of danger was equal for the two. And like Magus said, I dunno why people are taking this so personally. It's a fucking fact of life that women have to be more cautious because of shitty guys who exist.
-
I'm not taking offense at the notion that women have to take certain precautions that men don't. That's just reality. What I am taking offense at is the implication that women have to be cautious around men in general. That's offensive in my book, because it simultaneously vilifies men and disempowers women.
-
You're being self-contradictory now. You don't take offense that women have to be cautious, but you do take offense that women have to be cautious.
Again, how are women supposed to be psychic enough to know who is and who isn't a creeper?
-
You're being self-contradictory now. You don't take offense that women have to be cautious, but you do take offense that women have to be cautious.
Again, how are women supposed to be psychic enough to know who is and who isn't a creeper?
What I'm saying is, if a woman has reason to think he's going to hurt her, then she has every right to avoid him. However, it's ludicrous to be suspicious of all men because one might hurt her.
-
You're being self-contradictory now. You don't take offense that women have to be cautious, but you do take offense that women have to be cautious.
Again, how are women supposed to be psychic enough to know who is and who isn't a creeper?
What I'm saying is, if a woman has reason to think he's going to hurt her, then she has every right to avoid him. However, it's ludicrous to be suspicious of all men because one might hurt her.
Because every man who intends to hurt someone is going to exude all kinds of warning signs. It's never the charismatic guy who looks like he'd never hurt a fly. Never ever. Right.
-
You're being self-contradictory now. You don't take offense that women have to be cautious, but you do take offense that women have to be cautious.
Again, how are women supposed to be psychic enough to know who is and who isn't a creeper?
What I'm saying is, if a woman has reason to think he's going to hurt her, then she has every right to avoid him. However, it's ludicrous to be suspicious of all men because one might hurt her.
Because every man who intends to hurt someone is going to exude all kinds of warning signs. It's never the charismatic guy who looks like he'd never hurt a fly. Never ever. Right.
In other words, it's perfectly reasonable to be suspicious of somebody just because he's male. Do you even understand what you're implying? I'm all for fighting the patriarchy and raising awareness of women's issues, but this crosses a line.
-
You're being self-contradictory now. You don't take offense that women have to be cautious, but you do take offense that women have to be cautious.
Again, how are women supposed to be psychic enough to know who is and who isn't a creeper?
What I'm saying is, if a woman has reason to think he's going to hurt her, then she has every right to avoid him. However, it's ludicrous to be suspicious of all men because one might hurt her.
Because every man who intends to hurt someone is going to exude all kinds of warning signs. It's never the charismatic guy who looks like he'd never hurt a fly. Never ever. Right.
In other words, it's perfectly reasonable to be suspicious of somebody just because he's male. Do you even understand what you're implying? I'm all for fighting the patriarchy and raising awareness of women's issues, but this crosses a line.
There's a huge difference between suspicious and cautious. But the fact that you're using "suspicious" means that you're taking this damn thing personally.
No, women shouldn't be suspicious of all men, but they should be CAUTIOUS around all men. It's kinda like how you're supposed to be cautious around ALL strangers, period. It's just worse for women than men, and they get it worse from other men.
And the fact that it's men close to women that often commit rape is terrible, too. Yes, I saw your post before the edit. And it's sad that women have to be cautious around men they most know.
So instead of criticizing women for being cautious, criticize men for giving them reason to be cautious. And, like I said earlier, stop taking things personally.
-
You're being self-contradictory now. You don't take offense that women have to be cautious, but you do take offense that women have to be cautious.
Again, how are women supposed to be psychic enough to know who is and who isn't a creeper?
What I'm saying is, if a woman has reason to think he's going to hurt her, then she has every right to avoid him. However, it's ludicrous to be suspicious of all men because one might hurt her.
Because every man who intends to hurt someone is going to exude all kinds of warning signs. It's never the charismatic guy who looks like he'd never hurt a fly. Never ever. Right.
In other words, it's perfectly reasonable to be suspicious of somebody just because he's male. Do you even understand what you're implying? I'm all for fighting the patriarchy and raising awareness of women's issues, but this crosses a line.
There's a huge difference between suspicious and cautious. But the fact that you're using "suspicious" means that you're taking this damn thing personally.
No, women shouldn't be suspicious of all men, but they should be CAUTIOUS around all men. It's kinda like how you're supposed to be cautious around ALL strangers, period. It's just worse for women than men, and they get it worse from other men.
And the fact that it's men close to women that often commit rape is terrible, too. Yes, I saw your post before the edit. And it's sad that women have to be cautious around men they most know.
So instead of criticizing women for being cautious, criticize men for giving them reason to be cautious. And, like I said earlier, stop taking things personally.
Okay, I think I get it now. I wasn't taking things personally, I was just trying to point out what I felt were flaws in the movement.
However, I must criticize you for your last sentence. If you think the male gender as a whole is responsible for the crimes committed against women, that's just plain offensive. Of course, it's possible I'm misunderstanding you, and you're just talking about the individual men responsible. If that's the case, then I sincerely apologize.
-
However, I must criticize you for your last sentence. If you think the male gender as a whole is responsible for the crimes committed against women, that's just plain offensive. Of course, it's possible I'm misunderstanding you, and you're just talking about the individual men responsible. If that's the case, then I sincerely apologize.
Apparently you don't get it.
Our culture teaches men that women are goals to attain, trophies to be won, and, well, sex objects.
And you have people like MRAs and PUAs who reinforce this idea.
And it is this culture that creates a hostile zone for women.
So whether we wanted to or not, we created this hostile zone, it is our responsibility to clean it up.
-
So I'm expected to feel guilty because I have a penis? Fuck that! I'll certainly help the cause of feminism, but I'll do it because it's the right thing to do, not as a form of restitution.
-
So I'm expected to feel guilty because I have a penis? Fuck that! I'll certainly help the cause of feminism, but I'll do it because it's the right thing to do, not as a form of restitution.
It's not about your fucking penis.
It's about what society has trained you and me to believe about women, simply because we have penises.
By the Allfather, will you just listen for a moment!?
-
So I'm expected to feel guilty because I have a penis? Fuck that! I'll certainly help the cause of feminism, but I'll do it because it's the right thing to do, not as a form of restitution.
It's not about your fucking penis.
It's about what society has trained you and me to believe, simply because we have penises.
By the Allfather, will you just listen for a moment!?
Okay. I'm all ears.
-
So I'm expected to feel guilty because I have a penis? Fuck that! I'll certainly help the cause of feminism, but I'll do it because it's the right thing to do, not as a form of restitution.
It's not about your fucking penis.
It's about what society has trained you and me to believe, simply because we have penises.
By the Allfather, will you just listen for a moment!?
Okay. I'm all ears.
It's about the roles we are expected to play.
It's about the attitudes we are trained to have.
It's about how the media treats us.
It's about the subconscious pulse of society.
It's about what our culture allows and disallows.
Simply because we have penises, and they don't.
It's men perpetuating this, and women perpetuating this because "we" tell them to.
That is why it's our responsibility. To tell men otherwise.
This is not just for women, either. It's for the human race, as a whole. Because feminism isn't just about women, it's about men, too, who are hurt by what other men have decided is masculine and what is feminine.
That is why it's our responsibility.
To create an environment where we don't need to think of women as having to be related to us for us to care. We should care just because they're human beings.
That is our responsibility.
You don't want women to have to be cautious around you, simply because you're a male. Then let's fight the environment that men have created so they don't have to.
Let me put it this way
In this country, it's safer for a woman to say that she already belongs to a man than for her to say that she's just not interested in somebody.
In this country, it's safer for a woman to give a fake phone number to someone rather than to refuse to give them her number at all.
This is not okay. And yet there are plenty of men out there who would defend a man's right to be angry to the point of violence with these women.
And there are plenty of men who would sympathize with the woman. And plenty of men who would fake sympathy to try to get into her good graces so they can have sex with her.
We live in a world where we teach men to be predators and teach women to be prey. And whether the two of us mean to or not, we contribute to that.
-
So I'm expected to feel guilty because I have a penis? Fuck that! I'll certainly help the cause of feminism, but I'll do it because it's the right thing to do, not as a form of restitution.
It's not about your fucking penis.
It's about what society has trained you and me to believe, simply because we have penises.
By the Allfather, will you just listen for a moment!?
Okay. I'm all ears.
It's about the roles we are expected to play.
It's about the attitudes we are trained to have.
It's about how the media treats us.
It's about the subconscious pulse of society.
It's about what our culture allows and disallows.
Simply because we have penises, and they don't.
It's men perpetuating this, and women perpetuating this because "we" tell them to.
That is why it's our responsibility. To tell men otherwise.
This is not just for women, either. It's for the human race, as a whole. Because feminism isn't just about women, it's about men, too, who are hurt by what other men have decided is masculine and what is feminine.
That is why it's our responsibility.
To create an environment where we don't need to think of women as having to be related to us for us to care. We should care just because they're human beings.
That is our responsibility.
You don't want women to have to be cautious around you, simply because you're a male. Then let's fight the environment that men have created so they don't have to.
Let me put it this way
In this country, it's safer for a woman to say that she already belongs to a man than for her to say that she's just not interested in somebody.
In this country, it's safer for a woman to give a fake phone number to someone rather than to refuse to give them her number at all.
This is not okay. And yet there are plenty of men out there who would defend a man's right to be angry to the point of violence with these women.
And there are plenty of men who would sympathize with the woman. And plenty of men who would fake sympathy to try to get into her good graces so they can have sex with her.
We live in a world where we teach men to be predators and teach women to be prey. And whether the two of us mean to or not, we contribute to that.
I understand. I will join you. Sorry.
-
So I'm expected to feel guilty because I have a penis? Fuck that! I'll certainly help the cause of feminism, but I'll do it because it's the right thing to do, not as a form of restitution.
It's not about your fucking penis.
It's about what society has trained you and me to believe, simply because we have penises.
By the Allfather, will you just listen for a moment!?
Okay. I'm all ears.
Do you drive?
Assuming you do, do you automatically assume everyone around you is competent and going to follow the rules of the road and not get you into an accident thru no fault of your own? Or, do you exercise a little bit of caution when you see another vehicle approaching an intersection, or rapidly closing on you, moving a little too slowly, or any one of a hundred other things that catch your eye?
Frankly, you are a fool if you don't.
Now, for the sake of this analogy, women don't get cars. They get to ride motorcycles.
Ever ridden one in city traffic or on the highway? I have, for decades. You have no bumper. You have no airbags. You're small and vulnerable and virtually invisible. An accident that would barely scratch the paint on your car will put a biker in the morgue. The only way you stay alive is to anticipate and avoid getting yourself into potentially dangerous situations.
This is what women do. This is their only viable option. Don't begrudge it.
-
So I'm expected to feel guilty because I have a penis? Fuck that! I'll certainly help the cause of feminism, but I'll do it because it's the right thing to do, not as a form of restitution.
It's not about your fucking penis.
It's about what society has trained you and me to believe, simply because we have penises.
By the Allfather, will you just listen for a moment!?
Okay. I'm all ears.
Do you drive?
Assuming you do, do you automatically assume everyone around you is competent and going to follow the rules of the road and not get you into an accident thru no fault of your own? Or, do you exercise a little bit of caution when you see another vehicle approaching an intersection, or rapidly closing on you, moving a little too slowly, or any one of a hundred other things that catch your eye?
Frankly, you are a fool if you don't.
Now, for the sake of this analogy, women don't get cars. They get to ride motorcycles.
Ever ridden one in city traffic or on the highway? I have, for decades. You have no bumper. You have no airbags. You're small and vulnerable and virtually invisible. An accident that would barely scratch the paint on your car will put a biker in the morgue. The only way you stay alive is to anticipate and avoid getting yourself into potentially dangerous situations.
This is what women do. This is their only viable option. Don't begrudge it.
This immediately reminded me of something my dad told when teaching me to drive: "When you're driving, assume every other driver on the road is an idiot."
-
Besides UP - you have to understand that it is all about MY penis.
-
This immediately reminded me of something my dad told when teaching me to drive: "When you're driving, assume every other driver on the road is an idiot."
Everyone is taught that or learns it for themselves first hand. Amazingly nobody is offended by it. ::)
-
I have some questions about that '40% of domestic abuse victims are male' statistic.
Assuming it is true:
How many of those 40% are abused by other men?
How often, in cases of females abusing men, are the men seriously harmed or killed?
How often is the male reporting abuse also abusive toward his partner (mutual abuse, reciprocal abuse)?
Is verbal abuse included? And if it is, how much of that 40% is verbal?
Is abuse by family members such as sibling, cousins, parents, aunts or uncles, included?
I think the numbers matter, when MRA types are using this claim to try to silence women's demands for equality.
-
How often, in cases of females abusing men, are the men seriously harmed or killed?\
I don't have hard facts for you, but I remember reading once that when a woman is being violent towards a man, she's more likely to use objects to do so. Including frying pans.
It's no joke, either, a frying pan when used by anyone can actually do serious harm to someone, especially when you hit them in the head.
Part of this is due to the social viewpoint that women are weaker than men, therefore, they "need" tools to be able to compete on the same level.
As far as verbal/psychological abuse goes, I'm not sure there's any statistic for that because many people, including the victims, don't view either as "legitimate abuse".
-
It's men perpetuating this, and women perpetuating this because "we" tell them to.
I... kind of find this insulting. Women don't perpetuate gender roles because men tell us to, we do it because we, like men, are products of our society. Also like men, we're prone to stubbornly resisting changes to the status quo and perpetuating norms that benefit us (and there are gender roles that benefit some groups of women while harming others). We aren't children, obeying or rebelling against men -- we're people, responding to the issues that society as a whole, women included, has presented us. Failure to hold us accountable for our own contributions to gender inequality really only serves to belittle our ability to make our own conscious decisions.
-
My apologies, then.
-
No worries. :)