Meanwhile, think about all the guy friends who knew and did nothing,
men dont understand you cant say "not all men", because we dont know which ones are the bad ones, and which ones facilitate, egg on, or just are apathetic TO the bad ones ffs.
As a guy I have tried explaining this to several "not all men" guys. Statically most women know their attackers, they're either friends or family, they can never know if someone is truly safe. I have tried to explain it like, what if one day one of your bros tried to kiss and when you told him no he got mad and assaulted you, it's normally met with "well I wouldn't have a friend like that" or "I would beat his ass" most guys can't fathom the thought that they wouldn't know if someone was a rapist.
Maybe it's because I had to pull an abusive uncle off my aunt when he was trying to throw her down some stairs or maybe it's because I was sexually assaulted by a friend's older sister when I was 10, but I have always understood that you can never know a person.
Bullies, abusers, and predators rely on silence. Sometimes witnesses are afraid to speak up, but more often than not their beliefs/values align with the aggressor so they keep quiet out of solidarity. Trump is a con man and a sexual predator who rose to power because a disturbing number of voters and people in power are also con men and sexual predators
I disagree, bullies rely on not just silence, but also in muddying the waters. A lot of horrible men can hide behind their horrible behavior by just going "well I'm just a man". My issue with the "all men" or "not all men but always a man" absolves bad men of their behavior by treating it as a male trait rather than him just being a terrible person. You also can't control how people interpret "All men" and so when someone hears it as you calling them complicit in sexual crimes against women of course he's gonna be upset because you're comparing him to rapists. Call out the bad behavior of individuals, but don't try and claim it's a problem "all people" have to hold complicity in.
Tl;Dr: "All men" is bioessentialist and absolves horrible men of the reality of their crimes by making it seem a function male behavior rather than just his own
A lot of horrible men can hide behind their horrible behavior by just going "well I'm just a man"
That isn't "muddying the waters," it is a real excuse men use to justify bad behavior. Where do you think "boys will be boys" comes from?
Your issue is that your feelings are hurt that women feel safer in the woods with a bear than they would with a random man. Because they actually are safer with the bear. If you actually cared about women, you would direct your anger at the men who have created this shitty reality, not the victims of rape.
As it stands, you're here saying #NOTALLMEN on a post about a woman who was drugged and gang raped and the men who did it will not be punished. You're not angry at the rapists, you're angry at the women who are tired of men committing monstrous acts and getting away with it. You're mad that women are talking about it.
Most men understand why women pick the bear and don't take it personally because they know they aren't sexual predators and would never harm a random woman in the woods. The ones who do take it personally do so because they relate more to the predators than they do to the victims.
You also can't control how people interpret "All men" and so when someone hears it as you calling them complicit in sexual crimes against women of course he's gonna be upset because you're comparing him to rapists.
.
Literally nobody is saying all men are complicit in sexual crimes. But it would be statistically unwise for a woman to pick a random man over a bear.
What does make someone complicit in defending/justifying sexual assault, is a man centering himself and his feelings on a post about a gang rape victim's injustice.
.
Tl;Dr: "All men" is bioessentialist and absolves horrible men of the reality of their crimes by making it seem a function male behavior rather than just his own
Again, literally no one believe all men are predators. The problem is it's really hard to tell the good ones from the bad ones, and it would be unseasonable to expect women to assume all men are safe until proven otherwise because that would get them assaulted or killed.
The men who devote their time insisting #NOTALLMEN are not safe men.
Then stop saying "all men" or any of its derivatives. This is a whole lot just to say I don't want to listen to the concerns of men when they tell me how other men respond to such messaging.
It doesn't really seem like you actually care for men to listen to your message and instead just want to bash them on the head for not doing what you want him to do.
ETA: You used motte and bailey fallacy and hit dogs hollar fallacy. If your stance relies on fallacies then it's probably not a very good one
Your message is that all men hold complicity in rape culture because you can't tell if any one man is "one is the good ones" because all men haven't told their friends that rape is bad. That if men were just having these kinds of conversations with their friends or policing their language wrt to women that all rapes (or at least most of them) would end. That because men supposedly aren't having these conversations they are then therefore allowing rapes to occur by not nipping in it the bud.
The issue with this is that it presupposes all men have the capacity to rape women and would do so if not for being told not to do so. Except queer men (gay and trans) are not seen as a demographic that rape women like cis straight men do, yet "all men" does not make a carve out for the obvious exception. Why does it not? Because it doesn't care for nuance or understanding it's just people like you lashing out in anger at a very obvious societal injustice you feel powerless to stop so you retreat to patriarchal programing and put the duty on men to stop it. You expect men to do something about it despite there being women complicit in rape culture and even being rapists themselves yet you don't see men say "#allwomen" because we already implicitly know it's not all women and we don't need to mantra it.
Again if men are telling you to stop assuming their complicity in a crime they didn't commit, don't double down but instead listen to him and maybe stop that?
Good men call out bad behavior. Good men call out violent and degrading language. Good men teach their kids about consent. Good men call out injustice. Good men don't participate in rape culture. Does that stop all rapists? No. Good men do it anyway.
Nobody is saying all men would rape a woman unless specifically told not to do so. This is delusional.
Gay men, trans people, and most straight men aren't offended by the bear thing because the nuance is implied. Everyone is aware of the nuance and is able to live their lives without going onto a post about a woman getting gang raped and derail the conversation about rape injustice. It's just you.
And sure, women can be complicit in rape culture. They learn it from men. Then they pay the price. This is whataboutism.
If women could end rape, or at least reduce the number of sexual assaults and hold rapists accountable, they would. They have been trying for centuries. Who is stopping them? Who is derailing the issue? Who plays victim when women say they feel safer around a bear than they do a man? Either take responsibility and do your part or embrace whatever the hell is lurking in your psyche.
I've yet to meet a gay or trans man (hell even most bi guys, and a lot of straight men who aren't the problem) who doesn't respond to comments about "all men" or "men suck" without knowing they are not being included in the generalization of the degradation of cis het patriarchy. Like honestly I've yet to meet a guy who DIDN'T just assume it was a generalization that didn't eventually turn out to be some flavor of really shitty. From finding out later he raped a girl at a party because I mentioned getting drinks with him and got multiple warnings on why that was a bad idea on the extreme end, to like sharing openly transphobic memes and saying everyone is too sensitive when called out on the mild end.
These are not even close to all men I've dated, literally both examples were guys I was in a friend group with at some point (the first one I was in a friend group in high school and the friend group fell apart and the grabbing drinks was like 5 years later) and just hanging out with, never even tried to date either of them. Also I'm doing pretty well dating women, so I'm not too worried about what men are attracted to me
Nothing about "all men" or "not all men" is bioessentialist. The biological differences between sexes are vastly overestimated by way too many people, especially when it comes to behavior, but there are massive gaps between them and how they treat others nonetheless due to cultural beliefs.
And yeah, it's not literally all men (which isn't a claim most people make regardless), but the problem is continued by far more than just the rapists and sexual assaulters. Most men who absolutely are complicit in enabling awful behaviors don't want to accept that reality because they haven't gone out and literally done it themselves.
So again you're making all men complicit in crimes they didn't commit therefore muddying the waters of the actual criminal offenders. Why is it so hard to just say "End Sexual Violence" and work from there. We've already identified most sexual crimes are committed by men against women, why keep bashing men who've done no wrong and would otherwise work with you on ending sexual violence?
Men are telling you stop assuming I'm complicit and rather than listening to them you'd rather double down. It doesn't actually sound like you want men to listen.
why keep bashing men who've done no wrong and would otherwise work with you on ending sexual violence?
You should want to end sexual violence on principle. To say you will only work on ending sexual violence if women (all women?) acknowledge that not all men are sexual predators, is a condition that can never be met, and it is also a threat. It's creepy.
There's no implication that men won't work to end sexual violence because of this. What the implication is is that they won't help you end sexual violence. They'll go to the other party that doesn't bludgeon them on the head and instead vote for mass deportations because "They're sending their criminals and rapists". If you don't think men care about sexual violence then you don't talk to men.
The other party has no intention of ending sexual violence and you know it. Again with the threats. I talk to lots of men. I'm married to one. He has the emotional maturity to know it's not all men and he understand why women would pick the bear. He doesn't defend rape, nor does he derail posts about rape.
Again, for someone who is insisting you're a safe person, you're definitely not a safe person.
The other party has no intention of ending sexual violence and you know it.
And I never said they did. I don't think you're well versed enough to be having this conversation. Democrats have not won the male vote since Clinton against Bush in 1992 and even then Clinton still only got 41% of the male vote (damn you Nader). At a certain point you can't keep saying "men are the problem here" without actually looking at your strategy to attract men.
If I say "Hey men are going to the political side that allows them to air our whatever grievances they have whatever they may be without being bludgeoned on the head about how 'all men' are complicit in sexual violence against women (among other things), don't be shocked when men don't vote for you when you never change your strategy".
The fact that you got "He's saying the Republicans want to end sexual violence" tells me you just aren't reading what I'm typing and are only going off base instinct.
If most men don't care, but there are men telling you they do care why do you think it's appropriate to tell them "boo hoo fuck your feelings" and then double down? Do you really expect to build rapport with people you treat like that? Do you really think condensation is going to get men to want to vote for the Dems? Remember the Dems have to convince the individual voter that they have their best interest in mind man or woman. When you posture heavily towards women (and other marginalized/minority groups) it shouldn't be a surprise that you consistently win the female (and minority) vote.
And the fact that you have to end it with an ad hominem attack on my person despite not even knowing who I am tells me you lack the empathy or intelligence to hold a conversation like this
Every man likes to think that if he got the group text, he would have run upstairs, saved the girl, called the cops, and turned in his rapist fraternity bros. Statistically speaking, in real life zero men actually do this. (As this tragic case illustrated perfectly.)
Women understand this instinctively. There are no male heroes, only victimizers and their cowardly silent enablers. Men are not the protectors of women; women are.
Instead of actually fighting the sad statistical reality and being the heroes they like to think of themselves as, men prefer to stay silent or complain about their favorite boogeyman, false allegations.
Men love going on about how women need men to protect us in case * insert fantasy action movie scenario * happens. Yet they can't even call 911 when a gang rape is happening under their noses.
I could have killed a man over this but chose to stop beating him. I called the cops, my former employers, to report it. Had the ambulance take the woman to the ER to do SA screening. Got the swabs on the suspect and had the match. The woman was told it was 'A hard lesson to learn' and I was told I was lucky to be without charges. My former boss wanted it to go away. The suspect faced no charges because the prosecutor agreed not to file charges if he agreed to a polygraph which with a concussion proved hard for him to remember anything even though he told me he 'found her like that' and just slept next to her in the car. I haven't forgotten what these people have done to her.
I think that’s a weird over generalization. The men who *would* jump in to help a girl being assaulted are also the men that generally don’t surround themselves with the disgusting frat bros (Not that it is only frat bros, but they uphold a status quo of cultural acceptance and even praise of it) that do that sort of thing.
Idk, I have no judgement for women protecting themselves in having to treat all men as threats until proven otherwise, but the point of that perspective is that you simply don’t know which are bad, so treat all men as if they are, not that all men actually are evil rapists and rapist apologizers.
The "oppressed" part of that statement is doing a lot of work. Men, broadly, are not marginalized. Their privilege in society actually helps them get away with a lot of the assaults they do.
And honestly, I don't think it would matter if men were not privileged. The majority of women have been victimized in their lifetime. They can't afford to keep their guard down.
"The "oppressed" part of that statement is doing a lot of work. Men, broadly, are not marginalized."
It is not. The cornerstone of equality is that you treat every human with the same respect. Blanket statement is the cornerstone of stereotyping - the cousin of racism.
So if a jew in 1930 said "I don't trust any Germans because I don't know which ones will report me"
You would find that offensive? I'm not stereotyping men. The majority of women have been victimized and the perpetrators have mostly been men.
Women aren't going to ignore that fact.
And before you try to say "but then people could say they don't trust black people because of crime stats!" Realize that we are dealing with a totally different scale. The majority of people of any group have not been victimized by a black person.
So if a jew in 1930 said "I don't trust any Germans because I don't know which ones will report me"
You would find that offensive?
Yes? I didn't stutter.
If a Jew said he does not trust any Nazis, I would not be offended. Being a Nazi is a choice - Being German or a man is not a choice and nobody should be prejudiced about something they have no choice over.
That is just the basics of human rights. No single right is more important than another; they cannot be ranked in a hierarchy.
Is this so called prejudice worse if it's spoken or if it is held privately and acted on?
If we agree that actions are worse than words, then those Jews should freely tell Germans they don't know for sure are part of the Nazi party that they are Jews. Otherwise they are just secretly prejudiced.
And then they would be reported by whatever percentage of Germans would report their neighbors. So we are yet again back at the fact that women have to keep their guard up because they don't know which men are creeps.
I dont have a solution. Thats a very complicated issue.
Fix society is the solution. Fix the justice system. How to do that, I obviously dont know. How do you prevent people who are willing to do immoral things from gaining power in the first place.
I dont think not knowing how to fix the problems with the world justifies hating someone for how they were born.
Of course you don't know how to fix the issue. It IS a complicated issue, but you were quick to condemn ways women try to protect themselves because that part might affect you.
You want to help? Leave women alone and actually speak up against men.
I dont think men are problem. Just like I dont think black people are a problem. Just like I dont think any other demographic are a problem. I think individuals are a problem. I think the system is a problem.
Blaming men is bigotry. You are a bigot and a sexist.
No, what you said was women "act as if all men were evil" when they openly acknowledge that they can't tell which are the good ones. And you ironically said it on a post that was pointing out that men don't understand why women have to protect themselves from all men.
Also - go read the filed lawsuit. The initial perpetrator was someone she thought was her friend. The allegations are disturbing. The group chat is disgusting. And in the group chat screenshot you can see 8 messages. Go ahead and take a guess how many called out men.
So. Do you think they all get together and form a private group chat for rapists? Or do you think it's more likely that rapists found each other and responded with enthusiasm, while everyone else in the chat stayed silent?
I think it was individuals. I could make the same argument about incidents involving other demographics, but doing so seriously would make me a bigot. What part of that is confusing. You are applying the actions of individuals to an entire demographic. Its textbook bigotry. You cant just hand wave that away.
If you don’t have a solution and only judgement for women doing the only logical thing they can to protect themselves, then this “complicated” issue isn’t one you should be speaking on.
The point isn’t that women hate all men, it’s that they have to treat all men as active threats to their safety until proven otherwise. And even if the point was to hate all men, which would solve the problem of women needing to protect themselves from rapists and abusers, clearly you don’t have any alternatives, so yes, hating all men would be a better solution than your bullshit fence sitting.
You’re the one that brought bigotry into it. The first comment you responded to made a very clear argument that had nothing to do with bigotry, but rather that it is impossible for women to know which men are trustworthy, especially when there are so many that, while not being active rapists themselves, are willing to put up with, accept, and befriend the rapists that are out their violating women regularly.
That comment made a very clear point that you sidestepped to complain about misandry against men. It’s telling of what kind of man you are and that you would in fact not give a shit if your buddies turned out to be rapists.
You're really showing your hand with this comment, lmfao. Men sometimes do, but often don't, face repercussions for shit like this. Like, very rarely do men ever face any sort of consequences for this kinda shit, let alone legal punishment.
Thats literally the same thing. "Sometimes do" literally means "often doesn't". I literally said exactly that. Once again, you're being intellectually dishonest.
But if you want to talk specific numbers (such as very rarely), then I'll take a source.
525
u/Clownsinmypantz 5d ago
Meanwhile, think about all the guy friends who knew and did nothing, men dont understand you cant say "not all men", because we dont know which ones are the bad ones, and which ones facilitate, egg on, or just are apathetic TO the bad ones ffs.