|
Ddraig posted:Funnily enough not even men get the worst deal out of war wait... war is... BAD???
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 06:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 17:41 |
|
|
nigga crab pollock posted:you do realize that continuously arguing that men cannot be victimized by social norms because they were not specifically targeted by those norms is giving evidence to most the arguments in this thread, right? really i'm just making fun of people who want to equate mean spirited hashtags with racially motivated murder, like the guy who posted " Shrink that power imbalance (never mind reversing it) and the jokes get a lot more uncomfortable. Nobody would be laughing if black people started tweeting #DieSpicScum." there's just an unsustainable amount of hyperbole that goes into moving some of the arguments in this thread nigga crab pollock posted:i guess all those gay lynchings were just regular ol' murders then how many straight men get gay lynched or, in other words what about anti-gay violence is targeted at men in general i mean doesn't it kind of prove my point that i can say "there's no sustained level of violence that targets all men just because they're men" without people talking about subclasses like "but racial minorities! sexual minorities! religious minorities! men who were forced to serve in combat!" like thanks for accidentally agreeing with me i guess
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 06:54
|
|
|
lol that the thread about how discussion of domestic abuse towards men is deflected and belittled is being actively derailed and dismissed the irony is lost in a sea of shitposts about how actually, Terrible Thing is much, much worse than Terrible Thing and therefore Terrible Thing is not worth discussing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 06:55
|
|
|
nigga crab pollock posted:lol that the thread about how discussion of domestic abuse towards men is deflected and belittled is being actively derailed and dismissed well, yeah. i just don't see the actual looming harm done to men by women speaking opinions on the internet, and people don't seem capable of explaining why it's bad that women say mean things about the male gender in an offhand way without people itt going off on tangents about genocide i'm just not seeing how blog posts and hashtags are indicative of a social disregard for male domestic abuse victims. it seems like a great big leap from one to the other that's largely touted by people who for one reason or another have a chip on their shoulder re: females the reason nobody's really discussing actual domestic abuse is that 99% of people agree domestic abuse is Bad, and we don't really need a thread where we voice our opposition to domestic abuse
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 06:59
|
|
|
It gets ugly when the new politics of sensitivity get boiled down to "It's OK when the right people do it."
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 07:32
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:
those hashtags don't indicate the social disregard though. the disregard is already there. i dont think anyone is arguing that it causes some grand looming harm because thats asinine, but they are arguing that it doesn't do any good and it kind of makes some people feel like poo poo i don't feel like i have a chip on my shoulder about women, but i definitely have a chip on my shoulder, specifically about this aspect of ~The Patriarchy~; railtus posted:Any accounts that do not conform to the narrative can be dismissed as weak whiny losers failing at being men, and since they're whiny their problems are not real, meaning they can be ignored. Once that mentality is in place, men who don't benefit from the existing social structures are viewed as objects of scorn rather than sympathy. its all in the context of a society whose expected response is to dismiss your experiences and belittle you. the people who champion the fall of this social construct use the exact same methods of belittling as that social construct except for completely different reasons
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 07:53
|
|
|
When you've had a boot on your neck the only thing that makes you feel better is a neck under your boot.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 07:58
|
|
|
Wulfolme posted:It gets ugly when the new politics of sensitivity get boiled down to "It's OK when the right people do it." this defining of 'right people to say Thing' i think makes individuals more likely to gravitate towards those definitions so they have an excuse if/when they come under scrutiny. i never considered myself anything other than an american but my sister started calling herself russian-american and it's basically only to take a couple steps up (down? sideways?) on the Privilege Ladder. "im not working class im eurotrash thank you very much!!!" if you want to go loving crazy with that thought - what about gender and sexual identity? now that alternatives are gaining mainstream acceptance and in some very specific circumstances provide leverage does this increase in alternative identities represent people who are finally expressing themselves fully? or are people just slapping a superfluous definition and special name on their heteronormative behavior to move their place on this hypothetical privilege ladder? ive been half expecting the anti-lgbt crowd to come up with an argument similar to that to fearmonger because it feeds into their narrative. in schools especially. nigga crab pollock fucked around with this message at 08:56 on Mar 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 08:53
|
|
|
PTD keeps making my point for me: "If it's not as bad for group X, we should not focus on their experience until group Y's ills are completely eradicated" Just an occasional acknowledgement of things would go a long way but it is almost burned into the liberal psyche not to cede on this. When you are constantly having your experiences negated, and the only people you hear talking about them are the online wingnuts of Gamergate, you end up with radicalization that wouldn't otherwise happen.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 13:39
|
|
|
PTD's constant reframing of the problem as something 'one gender does to another' keeps getting pointed out as problematic - yet he keeps barreling ahead with it. "Well the patriarchy hurts men, but collectively their hurt is less than women receive, so women are just victims", correction, some women are victims, and some men are the victimizers. The harm perpetrated against and by is not distributed evenly. In fact, it correlates with ideology. There are plenty of women who are happy to engage in, and give validation for, the 'patriarchal' treatment of the victimized, whoever they are. They are just as much a part of, and agents of, as the system as the men are. By constantly shifting the frame to the grounds of pure identity, you're absolving some people of the responsibility of a choice they have made, and did not have to make. Abusers are abusers, simple as that. Happy International Women's day.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 14:14
|
|
|
menino posted:PTD keeps making my point for me: "If it's not as bad for group X, we should not focus on their experience until group Y's ills are completely eradicated" Why do you keep slipping 'liberal' in there? Do you genuinely see this as a 'liberal' thing? It's not like people who aren't liberals are all about aknowledging and drawing attention to issues concerning male victims of domestic abuse (or victims of elderly abuse, or prisoner abuse or any other kind of abuse). To characterise this as some kind of liberal hivemind thing suggests that there is an alternative non-liberal group who are doing a better job of not trivialising or minimising the suffering of others. Is that the case? I'm sure there are individual groups of people advocating for these kind of things, but you're not going to be able to sell the idea that it's some kind of charecteristic of non-liberal thinking. I'm as liberal as gently caress and I agree with a lot of what you're saying from the start, "Patriarchy is harmful to both men and women, and of course especially to women." Absolutely. As a father to a young son I'm particularly interested in the harmful affects of society's perception of masculinity and rape culture and all that on him as a person and the person he will become and sometimes it's really hard to talk about this without being accused of being all "what about the mens?" (and if I bring it up in some discussions it's a response I deserve). And yes.... it's usually liberals making that accusation, but that's because it's only liberals having that conversation in the first place rather than it being part of the liberal psyche.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 14:32
|
|
|
Happy International Women's Day, everyone.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 14:35
|
|
|
Gravy Jones posted:Why do you keep slipping 'liberal' in there? Do you genuinely see this as a 'liberal' thing? It's not like people who aren't liberals are all about aknowledging and drawing attention to issues concerning male victims of domestic abuse (or victims of elderly abuse, or prisoner abuse or any other kind of abuse). To characterise this as some kind of liberal hivemind thing suggests that there is an alternative non-liberal group who are doing a better job of not trivialising or minimising the suffering of others. Is that the case? I'm sure there are individual groups of people advocating for these kind of things, but you're not going to be able to sell the idea that it's some kind of charecteristic of non-liberal thinking. I guess I am contrasting 'liberal' with 'left'. I have no expectations of decency from most of the right.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 14:38
|
|
|
Dreylad posted:Happy International Women's Day, everyone. To celebrate I'm going to watch Back to the Future with my son and have a really uncomfortable discussion why Marty McFly was going to pretend to rape his mother, to trick her into falling in love with someone and I was completely OK with that when I watched the movie as a teenager about 100 years ago. That's totally not on topic so Happy International Women's Day everyone. Gravy Jones fucked around with this message at 14:48 on Mar 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 14:45
|
|
|
Dreylad posted:Happy International Women's Day, everyone. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 14:51
|
|
|
What would be a good international women's day movie? Where are the cinema nerds when you need them? And don't say 'cinema discussio', we both know that's not true.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 14:54
|
|
|
rudatron posted:What would be a good international women's day movie? Where are the cinema nerds when you need them? And don't say 'cinema discussio', we both know that's not true. Just pick any academy award Best Picture winners that were directed by a woman and pass the Bechdal Test and you should be good to go.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 14:57
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:really i'm just making fun of people who want to equate mean spirited hashtags with racially motivated murder, like the guy who posted " Shrink that power imbalance (never mind reversing it) and the jokes get a lot more uncomfortable. Nobody would be laughing if black people started tweeting #DieSpicScum."
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 15:10
|
|
|
rudatron posted:What would be a good international women's day movie? Where are the cinema nerds when you need them? And don't say 'cinema discussio', we both know that's not true. In Deadpool his girlfriend pegs him in celebration of Internation Women's Day, so I guess that's a pretty good one.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 15:22
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:is women's freedom of speech to say #KillAllMen really a downside for men? it hardly seems like a downside, at the end of the day i am not dead because of internet words By downsides for men, I was thinking more of the things I experienced such as sustained beatings and the time I was molested, where the primary reason I was at any risk at all was because of gendered social power that authorised them as women to commit violence and obligated me as male to absorb that violence (and cut me off from access to help). Now these had already been mentioned in the thread, and you are apparently reading my comments based on the fact that you quoted me, meaning you knew that you were addressing someone who has experienced gendered physical, psychological and sexual abuse and yet you still attempt to characterise the downsides for men as “women's freedom of speech” and “internet words”. That is a clear and unambiguous attempt at trivialisation. Thankfully it is so clear and unambiguous that it lacks the subtlety required to effectively hurt me, although I'm not used to the attempts at trivialisation being quite so conscious and deliberate. You're calling it "women's freedom of speech" and "internet words" in the full awareness that you are replying to someone who was the target of childhood sexual violence, and was a target of such specifically as a downside of being male. Yes, I am belabouring the point a little, because this is the kind of thing I would struggle to believe was real without directly witnessing it in action, and I think it's worth people seeing that it happens. Popular Thug Drink posted:you're right about this, #KillAllMen would probably carry more weight as a threat if there had ever at any point in history been a sustained program of violence and oppression targeted at men in general That is moving goalposts: “men in general” implies men of all creeds, nations, classes, races, sexualities, and so on – targeting men regardless of background. That is a much higher standard of evidence than we use to recognise Violence Against Women; when we use that standard of “women in general” we might struggle to find a campaign of violence against women collectively that was likewise indiscriminate of other factors. katlington posted:Is this like soldiers are usually men so wars are violence against men or something? That is a small aspect of it – although it sounds far less far-fetched when you consider the frequency of conscription in wars. There's also gendered idea that it's a man's duty to risk his life on behalf of women, or that we list “women and children” killed as though the men who are killed have less gravity or value. Generally though, I think the issue is less conscious than “let's make men suffer” and more a case of men as targets-by-default. When violence against women is regarded as an especially heinous crime, whereas other violence is somehow more acceptable, that means that the violence is more easily condoned when the primary targets are men. I'll share a wikipedia quote from here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_against_men quote:Mass killings I think the issue is that we take notice when killings do not specifically single out men. When violence that concentrates on men specifically is just seen as normal violence, that raises the standard of proof needed for the male-targeting violence to receive any acknowledgement as being gendered, because there's an implicit belief that violence in general "should" target men primarily. It's a negative/passive form of prejudice defined more by apathy and indifference or contempt rather than active hatred, so instead than a drive specifically to harm men it is more that violence that happens to men fails to generate the same outrage that should be generated by all violence. There's not the same barriers in place. So there's not the same rhetoric necessarily, or the rhetoric that does exist and is genuine gets passed off as trivial, but there are definitely consequences to being the acceptable targets of violence. nigga crab pollock posted:its all in the context of a society whose expected response is to dismiss your experiences and belittle you. the people who champion the fall of this social construct use the exact same methods of belittling as that social construct except for completely different reasons Kind of. I see it as using different sets of rationalisations and justifications for fundamentally very similar attitudes by people who depend upon that social construct and in many cases who are that social construct. Same system, different decoration. We have gotten in this thread a hammering of "men should shrug off their problems and focus on women's issues", which lines up very effectively with the traditionalist-conservative belief that men should be stoic and that men as a class are collectively responsible for safety and happiness of women as a class collectively. Railtus fucked around with this message at 16:10 on Mar 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 15:28
|
|
|
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 15:34
|
|
|
I'm not gonna read this thread but as a dude who has been a victim of DV and SA I'd say the #killallmen crowd is considerably more likely to take my experiences with DV and SA seriously than the general population. Though I have had my poo poo attacked for "appropriating the struggles of women" by some straight cis white lady feminists who seem to be in a lifelong competition for Woke Points.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 16:10
|
|
|
Bushiz posted:I'm not gonna read this thread but as a dude who has been a victim of DV and SA I'd say the #killallmen crowd is considerably more likely to take my experiences with DV and SA seriously than the general population. Though I have had my poo poo attacked for "appropriating the struggles of women" by some straight cis white lady feminists who seem to be in a lifelong competition for Woke Points. Who else do you think tweets out #killallmen? Actual victims of violence and oppression would never wish it perpetuated on anyone else.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 17:00
|
|
|
420 Gank Mid posted:Who else do you think tweets out #killallmen? I would confirm that. There have been self-identified feminists who have shown genuine compassion towards me, whether because of their feminism or independent of their feminism, and they have always been (in my experience) very different to the #KillAllMen crowd.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 18:46
|
|
|
Non journalist power users on Twitter seems to be ppl with borderline/histrionic personality disorder too, both left and right. Lots of scam artists and 'activists' who are mostly concerned with branding and obscure in-group status plays.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 19:09
|
|
|
menino posted:Non journalist power users on Twitter seems to be ppl with borderline/histrionic personality disorder too, both left and right. Lots of scam artists and 'activists' who are mostly concerned with branding and obscure in-group status plays. twitter fame is such a pointless and worthless pursuit that the people who seek it out are necessarily completely divorced from reality and hung up on super-weird poo poo. 420 Gank Mid posted:Who else do you think tweets out #killallmen? well if you'll reread my post you'll see that I was indicating that #killallmen people have been more supportive than the general population. Honestly the biggest indicator that a person who identified as a "feminist" would be dismissive of my experiences with DV and SA has been "white person and ravenous clinton supporter"
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 05:10
|
|
|
420 Gank Mid posted:
It would be so sweet if this were true. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 06:11
|
|
|
Railtus posted:different sets of rationalisations and justifications for fundamentally very similar attitudes by people who depend upon that social construct and in many cases who are that social construct. Same system, different decoration. We have gotten in this thread a hammering of "men should shrug off their problems and focus on women's issues", which lines up very effectively with the traditionalist-conservative belief that men should be stoic and that men as a class are collectively responsible for safety and happiness of women as a class collectively. Popular Thug Drink posted:there's just an unsustainable amount of hyperbole that goes into moving some of the arguments in this thread I'd argue that the people defending the way feminism rationalizes traditionalism are the ones holding the unsustainable argument. menino posted:I guess I am contrasting 'liberal' with 'left'. I have no expectations of decency from most of the right. wiregrind fucked around with this message at 11:56 on Mar 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 10:39
|
|
|
I don't think it's as much that feminism turns into traditionalism, but that traditionalism creeps into the heads of people who regard themselves as feminists, out of their blind spots. Like they're not holding themselves to the same standards they ask of others. It's the unexamined assumptions, taken for granted, inherited because they feel 'normal'. In that mindset, feminism as an political project isn't strictly an ideological one, but a 'women's issues' movement - if you want to address women's issues, protect women, then you become a feminist. Which is in opposition to an ideological-political movement, which is inherently transformative. I mean take the #KillAllMen thing - it's not serious, it's ironic mockery of caricatures of feminism, 'oh they hate men'. But there's still a fair amount of enjoyment on display in making that kind of mockery, and they certainly felt they needed to mock it, rather than just dismiss it off hand. That's not, I think, because the caricatures are true, that they hate men, but the assumption behind the hashtag, is that the problem of sexism stems from men. Men and men alone are the problem, and absent them, everything just resolves. And it's that assumption that's the hold over from traditionalism, that only men have agency, that the set of assumptions bound up in traditionalist ideology is related to some essentialist masculine nature, that structural social problems are fundamentally linked to individual human beings and whether or not they act 'good' or 'bad', and that if people acted less 'bad' then the problems wouldn't exist. edit: But all of this is extant in feminism (though phrased differently), it's just that a lot of the people labeling themselves as 'feminists' aren't acting consistently with their professed ideology. Not that I think that's a bad thing, it just means more people need to go beyond them, surpass them. rudatron fucked around with this message at 13:53 on Mar 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 13:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 17:41 |
|
|
Railtus posted:Which is why I want more discussion. I don't think we're ever going to stop the trivialisation of abuse against men, but it will do far more to help if men become more aware of abusive behaviours against them, the harm they can cause, and ways people will try to trivialise it - that way they can form effective strategies to protect themselves against further abuse. For me at least, an important aspect of my ongoing recovery from that abuse is recognising habits or beliefs I held that made me such an easy target (such as chivalry and appeasement, where I saw it as my responsibility to make her happy). Suppression is a temporary measure at best. I favour a long-term solution where men have a better understanding of healthy and unhealthy relationships. Agreed. I spent years enduring DV and it wasn't until someone pulled me aside after witnessing it did I begin to recognize what was going on. Even then it took me a long time to dig myself out from underneath it. I also found myself utilizing ideas such as chivalry and appeasement - the Golden Rule - to try and 'fix' the relationship when all it did was make things worse and worse. I tend to favor a long-tail education movement, with a focus on how DV often drives men into self-reinforcing downward spirals. Start young, introduce the notion to boys that they can be at-risk and follow it up with age-appropriate scenarios delivered at the right time. "When you're a teenager, it looks like (this)" "When you're in your 20s, it can look like (this)" "When you're married, it looks like (this)"
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 16:18
|
|
