Honestly, I agree men’s issues do need to be seriously discussed, but it’s wrong to hijack discussion about women’s issues to talk about men’s issues. The reverse is also true.
I agree with this and I’d also add that bringing up men’s issues to try to silence discussion of women’s issues then harms men as well because people associate discussion of men’s issues with that type of shit behaviour.
While I agree with this sentiment, IME it is very rarely intended to silence discussion of women’s issues, and is usually related to hyperbolic statements like “men are trash” or protest signs like “not all men but always a man” (both from a lemmy post I partook in “attempting to silence” last month.) Imo it’s reasonable to take offense, disagree, and express both of those feelings wherever I see it to call it out. I am not trying to silence women, I just want them to treat me with the same respect I treat them, if they don’t want me to say “all women are trash” because two women have literally raped me (except for the definition of rape in my area calls for penetration specifically, so legally forcing me to have sex with them was at most “sexual assault,” which while I’m mentioning it fuck that bullshit, but I digress), then they shouldn’t get to call me trash because someone who is not me, I’m not friends with, and who I’ve never even met, raped them either. I, as a male rape victim, am expected to be able to separate “those women” from “all women” lest I be an “incel” (though, by the definition of incel I think being raped twice negates that alone, yet they still call you one for being a victim and mad about being lumped in with the aggressors for the crime of having the same genitals as their aggressor), and all I’m asking for is the same in return. We can stand with victims and against abusers, it doesn’t have to be male victims vs woman victims vs abusers battle royale.
/rant.
Sorry, I happen to care about this topic a lot, being personally effected and all lol.
I understand the anger at the statements. They are visceral and immediately labelling. I’ve found that it is good to understand these taglines as simplified mantras, such as “don’t talk to the police”. It is meant as a heuristic for women’s safety, and so long as you understand that you yourself aren’t dangerous, the tagline does not apply to you. It also lets you know exactly where women are coming from: why they only use the restroom in groups, why they aren’t going to give you an outright answer most of the time, and why they will keep their distance until they know you.
I’d argue that these behaviors should not be gender-coded and should be practiced by both men and women, and that vilification of violent outbursts , and similar sexist tropes, should also not only apply to men. It is explicitly sexism which puts this barrier up, where women being violent is downplayed, and men who use women’s playbooks are viewed as less masculine.
These are issues of the same coin, which is a divide created by both genders applying different stereotypes to one another and then operating based on those stereotypes
I’ve actually seen the opposite happen more often than the former. Both online and irl. A guy starts complaining about things and a cacophony of women show up to tell him how he’ll never understand what it’s like to be a woman.
Whenever I do see the opposite and when the guy interjects all that’s said is “there’s a time and a place to talk about men’s issues” but like when is it then?
Both scenarios are possible and it is shitty to use whataboutism in both scenarios.
Whenever I do see the opposite and when the guy interjects all that’s said is “there’s a time and a place to talk about men’s issues” but like when is it then?
When it’s not being used as a whataboutism.
When it’s not being used as a whataboutism.
Ever seen a discussion about men complaining that they are assumed to be a threat just for being male get derailed by comments that it isn’t a problem worth complaining about compared to women’s issues? Or when the topic of how sexual abuse of boys is extremely common gets derailed as not really being an issue and dismissed by crime stats that often exclude non-penatrating sexual assaults?
Yes it sucks when whataboutism is used to dismiss complaints, but it is also frustrating that the same whataboutism is used to silence discussion that is about the issues that men face.
Yeah I really don’t see the situation in the comic often at all. I won’t say it doesn’t happen, but I’ve personally witnessed way more of this reactionary diversion when men are discussing their unique issues.
I think it is most often when these conversations happen online that vocal reactionaries try to derail the conversation. More often than not, local and private dialogues I’ve been apart of and around tend to be more civil. In fact, both men and women seem to be on the same side when they voice their issues to each other face-to-face. I think cameras can also sour the situation, since it can put people on edge to be recorded.
At the same time, while there is a massive amount of people who get behind feminist movements and those who back counter-feminist movements, there is very few of those same counter-feminists who seem to actually ever participate in man wellbeing support infrastructure, hence why that infrastructure does not materialize. It seems that a good portion of folks only seem to pipe up as a direct counter to women trying to advocate for themselves, and then are silent and frugal when men are trying to advocate for themselves non-adversarily. I’d argue there are many people who are trying to attack both as they try to uphold the status quo.
We saw this reactionary behavior against feminist advocacy during Gamergate, as a great example - specifically when talking about the events related to Anita Sarkeesian’s ‘Tropes vs Women in Video games’. I went back and watched that series, and overall the points are fair criticisms of videogame writing (and honestly tropes in media in general). I don’t think that anything Anita pointed out was even that vilifying either. The overall response, however, was very toxic and dismissive, and was paired with a harassment campaign.
We saw a similar backlash from a vocal minority for most subsequent feminist actions surrounding cases of sexual abuse such as “Me Too” being countered by protests such as the “HimToo” movement. There’s no reason both these conversations couldn’t happen but it always seems that they only ever show up at the same time, and try to steal each others thunder.
We could also talk about the Depp v Heard court case, which had extreme levels of toxicity across the board, with large portions of folks on either side choosing to view one side as exclusively as a lying abuser and the other as completely exalted of any blame when what was being shown was an relationship full of mutual toxicity.
Man just going for irony right away, eh?
Whenever I do see the opposite and when the guy interjects all that’s said is “there’s a time and a place to talk about men’s issues” but like when is it then?
Probably not in the thread with the comic about womens issues being talked over by men, like you’re doing now, would be a good choice.
EDIT: I’ll eat the downvotes. Just wanted to say how embarrassing it is to be a man and hear ‘but what about men’s issues?’ used in a non-ironic way. Sorry ladies, you don’t deserve this crap. Also thanks for being the bulwark against fascism.
there’s a time and a place to talk about men’s issues" but like when is it then?
Not when women are discussing theirs. It’s that simple.
Twitter normalized of extremely simplistic expression of complicated issues which leads to all kinds of kneejerk reactions. Some men misinterpret whatever complaint as being about them and turn defensive, and of course the most aggressive of those voices are amplified by social media. The inflammatory comments beget more inflammatory comments, reasonable people quickly exit the space and this is what you end up with.
I firmly believe it’s social media that’s to blame.
Some men misinterpret whatever complaint as being about them
I think that’s reasonable if the complaint is about men in general, or specifically calls out all men.
For sure social medias are a big part of it.
I understand that “all men are trash” and the likes are generalizations about men, not me specifically. But when you see these lines make rounds and rounds again, it can makes you question yourself even if you’ve done nothing wrong. And that’s a big hit to self-esteem and anxiety.
I’d like to, whenever possible, move away from women’s issues or men’s issues towards people’s issues.
It’s a good thing to do that, but some issues really are heavily affected by gender
That is very true. Often, it is reactionaries coming in trying to deny the existence of those issues blocking progress, not advocates for either. There are many actively trying to stop the conversation, and those very same individuals actively pose as ‘advocates’ while spitting vitriol. “There’s nothing wrong with how you act, it’s all just those progressives faults! No, you don’t need any help, it’s all fake!” This is explicitly just to shut the conversation down and strengthen the divide between gender advocates.
Tbf, the times I usually see it “hijacked” it’s because of signs like “not all men but always a man” completely pretending that male rape victims don’t exist, or comments like “men are trash” under the post. If I ever in my life saw a post about male victims that said “women are trash” or had comparable signs and women complained, I would see that as totally justified.
Rage bait. These posts aren’t created to do anything other than get people mad at each other.
There’s also plenty of room in there for less malicious situations as well (not that the malicious ones you speak of aren’t happening…they are…but there’s other cases as well).
I think a lot of the problems arise based on differing expectations, and ideas about what a “conversation” entails.
Too often, it seems like a conversation means “let me voice my grievances, assign blame, and explain my ideas about why it’s like that and what should be done…and didn’t you dare to disagree with me or question anything or point out flaws in my logic, because this is my space!”
And hey, you’re free to do that…but that ain’t a conversation. Conversation means you don’t get to dictate the terms completely to everyone else.
I feel like those who do this do know, deep down, that they don’t want a conversation at all… but “everyone shut up, let me say my thing, then agree with me” tends to draw in a smaller audience. You might be right, you might be wrong, but, “Listen to me and don’t say anything I don’t like.” isn’t a conversation.
That’s the problem… When is it time to talk about men’s issues? Specifically, in a group that doesn’t listen to Peterson and Andrew Tate
I agree with what you said, but I think the solution is to talk about everyone’s issues instead of men’s issues. Men’s issues aren’t about the men, they’re about how men relate to others.
Women’s issues should have their place, but men don’t need the same thing… Instead they need everyone to show up and talk about their own issues
Bring it up in a space, any space, that isn’t there for the purpose of talking about women’s issues. Make a community now. Write in it.
I’m giving the community a month before it gets flooded by Peterson and Tate types.
And !comicstrips is a space that is here for the express purpose of talking about women’s issues then? Or do you also believe this should be relegated to !feminists, too?
That’s the problem… When is it time to talk about men’s issues? Specifically, in a group that doesn’t listen to Peterson and Andrew Tate
You can start a conversation.
Ok…I did. That’s what I just did. You were there for it
What now? I pointed out the problem, I can tell you the answer at the end of the conversation. The answer is third places.
How do we get there?
I have never seen this happen. I am sure it happens. Perhaps we can leave these toxic people behind. Regardless of gender, color, …
A lot of the modern “Western Chauvinism” is due to tech bros following Curtis Yarvin’s ideas. JD Vance and his handler Peter Thiel are some of his followers.
The philosophy emerged out of the Neo-reactionary “dark enlightenment” period of 2014 - around the time of GamerGate, but has had Tech Bros funding it the whole time… And now they have their own VP candidate!
These misogynist “philosophies” are far far older than 2014 and in no way modern.
But the old ones don’t have VP candidates right now, and aren’t expressly aimed at ending democracy and replacing it with a techno monarchy.
Yarvin has been described as a “neo-reactionary” and “neo-monarchist” who “sees liberalism as creating a Matrix-like totalitarian system, and who wants to replace American democracy with a sort of techno-monarchy”.[7][8][9]
Nor do they have multiple billionaires backing them ao just trying to stay focused on what’s most relevant right now.
Edit: By the way, Vance’s political career is only two years old, and has been entirely funded by Thiel, who also introduced him to Trump as a VP candidate… And Thiel is on record as wanting to end Democracy.
I’ve seen the opposite of this happen way more often. In fact, I think we should take care to let people speak on these issues without diminishing or having another issue hijack the discussion.
Anyone should be able to talk about their issues without being told that it doesn’t matter because there’s some other issue.
Upvote though because I like the discussion.