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’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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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?
Why does everything have to be so us-vs.-them? We all share the same planet.
This is potentially gender construct and sexism getting directly in the way of advocacy against real issues. Women start a protest advocating against a very real issue they face, by women for women, and it is spun as a direct attack on men. Same thing happens for men’s advocacy.
“…For the Master’s tool will never dismantle the master’s house. They may allow us temporarily to beat him at his own game, but they will never enable us to bring about genuine change. And this fact is only threatening to those women who still define the master’s house as their only source of support…” - Audre Large, in “Master’s Tools Will Never Take Down the Master’s House”
I don’t think most would blame many women for the practices they do in public to stay safe, despite the behavior explicitly being sexist. This is because we understand that in absence of these kinds of behaviors, women do actually get prayed upon, most often by men. It’s the reality of a dangerous world. however, we get angry when the statements and phrases used to justify these behaviors are said aloud.
What we fail to acknowledge is that that same kind of victimization is possible to a guy. Most guys would find the idea of deliberately using the bathroom at the same time as their friend as weird, possibly even girly. Machismo stereotypes and trying to conform to manliness actively makes men more vulnerable .
We also downplay women being violent, yet again a gender stereotype which not only lets women get physical in public, but actually also makes women easier to dismiss when they’re angry and yelling. This not only lets women get away with toxic behavior, but robs them of being taken seriously at other times.
These are both issues caused by gender, which is also actively defining how advocacy happens and creates an arbitrary divide.
Outrage is the new thing. Many people aren’t happy or able to feel like their life is affirmed without being angry with someone or at something and it’s vital to their ideology to impose their values on others.
Non compliance with their demands is non optional.
Sometimes certain subsets of the planet have problems particular to their region, culture, or cohort.
Telling a person wandering through the desert “I also get thirsty” maybe deflects from the issue at hand.
Telling a person wandering through the desert “I also get thirsty” maybe deflects from the issue at hand.
Or… That may be a show of support, in sharing of a common burden, a message of, “You are not alone in this struggle.”
Rather than always seeing it as a negative, maybe allow for the possibility that it’s coming from a different place.
Honestly, I feel like this whole sentiment of, “Don’t attempt to bring any context into a conversation. Only stick strictly to what one person has decided to talk about.” is not only counterproductive in that moment, but also in the medium and long term has a marked effect in shutting down future conversations about difficult and uncomfortable topics.
I mean, how many times does a person get into a conversation that starts with, “Can we talk about X?” or “Let’s have an open, honest discussion about Y?”…only to add something to that conversation and be told, “No, you’re wrong for bringing that up. We’re only talking about X and why it’s the worst thing ever.”… before they get to the point where the next time someone says, “Can we talk about Z?” they just say, “No, sorry. Not interested.”?
I feel like men do have it tough and when men start talking about it, they get shutdown and told to be a man. Boys dont cry afterall. So some men may feel its unfair when women speak up and are heard. So they want to make it about them. In the comic, just as the men are dismissive of woman problems, she is dismissive of mens problems. Instead of attacking an unfair weath class system, we bicker about shupid shit like men vs women. Its not race, gender or sexuality we should be discussing. Its social, weath classes.
The time to talk about men’s problems is any time you like, except when a woman has just started talking about women’s problems. If you redirect a conversation about women’s problems, you’re telling the women that you don’t care about their problems. If that’s the case, fine. Just don’t contribute, and let people who want to discuss the women’s problems do that. Start another conversation about men’s problems elsewhere.
I guess so. Like most whataboutism it’s a deflection for the sake of self- preservation. The truth is that there are specific problems with the way society treats women, and recognising that is disruptive and possibly painful.
The problem is that it’s so easy to see it as a mechanism to maintain the status quo. Which it so often is. Even when men call for change, it’s quite often “women should behave differently” rather than “everyone needs to reflect on their behaviour and start making changes for the better.”
I think people do care about men’s problems, but too often it just comes out as “the problem is toxic masculinity”.
Fundamentally yes that is a major problem, and we need to find a better identity that men can subscribe to. But it’s like taking a book and just showing people the last page: it seems like irrelevant nonsense without the preceding understanding.
If we set up a place where we listened to each other, and to the feedback of women, with the intent of forging a new and more functional form of masculinity, I for one would be very interested indeed.
Ppl that make these kinds of comics clearly do not socialize with others irl. This only happens online with other trolls, from everywhere on the spectrum of whatever group. But irl, most people are pretty decent.
The internet is part of real life. Internet trolls are real people behind their screens, and they live somewhere. Maybe they live far away from you and near this artist.
Maybe they also don’t socialize because they never actually go out either. Just a bunch of asocials sitting in their respective moms basement trolling away.
I agree. There is an added layer of depersonalization, but it’s still real life, just like driving in traffic. The same people who would be courteous in person could be cutting you off and being freely offensive on the road. The interactions are no less real, maybe even more real than some situations that prescribe some distancing, like a job interview or talking to a coworker, depending on how close you are.
The vast majority of ppl are decent. If others can’t find them, that’s a them problem.
No. Most people drive cars, despite the fact that they know cars are destroying all life on earth. Most people are capable of rationalising their behaviour to remove culpability for the consequences of their actions. Most people are evil, in the same kind of banal way that most people in Nazi Germany accepted the new way of doing things and didn’t fight back, because they felt they had too much to lose from resisting.
Just like me. Here I am a very toxic one, but in the real world I consider myself a nice person
Isn’t that the whole point of social media? A cathartic outlet that doesn’t actually affect anyone or anything.
Honestly same thing happens when we talk about men.
Tons of women coming up, saying “women have it worse” and attempting to minimize the importance if men’s issues.
Let’s just listen to both sides for once, and make everyone heard. When everyone is given a platform to speak, there’s no need to interrupt each other.
I agree that it’s not quite the same, and I’m finding it real interesting to ponder how that happens.
This comic and this comment section have been pretty thought provoking. (Heads up, this is overly abstract speculation from here): For example, here’s a mathsy diagram This is a commutative diagram, and I’m not at the level of being able to explain it properly, but part of it is the idea of equivalence, the fact that there’s two routes from A to D that are equivalent.
I’m thinking about this sort of analogous to what we’re seeing in the comic and these comments. Like, the base experiences we’re talking about (being spoken over when you’re trying to share your experiences, for example) are fundamentally shared experiences, but the manner of experiencing them is different, because it’s coloured by our own positionality (of which gender is a big part of). I think sometimes though, it’s like discussions don’t work because we get separated — some of us at B, and some at C. Like, it does matter that our experiences are different, but also, there’s a sense in which it doesn’t, because we need to head to the same place anyway.
I don’t know what converging on D would be in this analogy. Solidarity perhaps? Which would, I suppose, involve recognising that the route you’re on is different to the route other people are on, and that it’s possible to be heading to the same place. I’m not sure, this is quite abstract, but you said the word “meta” and that seemed to catalyse this thought, so here’s this comment. You’re welcome/my apologies
The comic is about how when people speak online online about women’s issues, dudes keep trying to make it about dudes.
The comic itself is someone talking online about women’s issues, and the comments are all men trying to make it about them.
It’s remarkably similar.
My point is that it is a universal issue, all while many people are trying very hard to represent it as women-specific.
When male voices are shushed both under their posts and under those focused on women, they don’t have much of a platform to speak out. And they need it, too.
If all sides have an opportunity to say things without being interrupted, there is no point in chiming in and saying the other side has it worse.
As much as you may be right that both men and women are experiencing this, the post was talking about how women experience it. And when women speak out about it, it’s apparently hard to talk about just that and instead the male experience has to be discussed as well.
Again, I really don’t think you intended anything bad here. But as you said:
If all sides have an opportunity to say things without being interrupted, there is no point in chiming in and saying the other side has it worse.
Women try to talk about it (e.g. via this topic), but you interrupted by chiming in how men are also affected. That might well be true, but it’s also the kind of interruption that can be frustrating because, and I say this as a man, the experience women have is probably different (on average) from the experience men have.
You’re not one of the voices in the comic shouting “misandrist” or anything, but it is a kind of “and what about the men?” type of statement. And I don’t think you’re trying to be dismissive here at all and I do believe your intentions are good, but the result here is that what women want to talk about is once again not talked about, which is what the comic is about.
Your well-intentioned statement I think perhaps unbeknownst to you is steering the discussion away from the intended topic. And it’s exactly that problem that this comic addresses.
Comic: “I’m here to talk about women.” Heckling ensues
First Comment: “This is exactly what happens to men.” Wall of Upvotes
Proof that you can pull the users out of the Reddit but you can’t pull the Reddit out of the users.
For me, while I get where the post is coming from, a lot of the narrative seems to revolve around the dynamic of:
“We need to have an open dialog about XYZ. Let’s have a conversation.”
“Okay, then here’s ABC for context, as a comparison to XYZ.”
“Actually I’m here to talk about XYZ, not ABC. And you’re the problem for not strictly limiting this open conversation to the specific scope I want to consider.”
Like… you can either ask for open discussion or you can say, “Everybody shut up and listen to what I have to say, and unless you’re opening your mouth to completely agree with me in every way, don’t bother because I’m not here for anything other than letting you all know what I think.”
I’m not saying that the points are wrong or bad, just that it’s a bad look to start out with talking about an interest in having a dialogue, then as soon as there’s any expansion of the scope of discussion, suddenly being unhappy that there’s thoughts different from where it started out, and playing the victim or worse, blaming whoever took the invitation for an open dialogue at face value and engaged in good faith.
I’d actually disagree with you.
I don’t think the Comic is specifically about women.
I think this is about the overarching problem of whataboutism and its consequences on society and societal discourse.
In which case the OP would be on-topic and you would be the one derailing.
I am not saying that either of you is trying to derail but rather just showing that different interpretations (a more literal interpretation on your side and a more symbolic on ours) can lead to different discussions.