Differing reactions to men & women getting abused

[NovaKart]

They shouldn't, and it's unfortunate that they do. But when so many of the people talking about male abuse victims are people like Narz, who have no actual interest in the well-being male abuse victims but merely wish to use the issue as an anti-feminist cudgel, it's easy to see how they become numb to it.

We don't, as a society, have the conceptual tool-kit to deal with male victims of abuse. This is tragic, and it needs to change. But embittered retrogrades are only making things worse, and there's no reason to pretend otherwise.

I never got that feeling about Narz but maybe I don't post here often enough to notice it. I've never been part of the board enough to really get to know a lot about people here.

I do think the MRA movement has done a lot to hurt legitimate men's issues by attacking feminism and just putting people on the defensive so I do agree about that.

 

[Traitorfish]

To criticize feminists is like being an Anti-Semite?

If you don't like it, take it up with the Judeo-Bolshevik Central Committee. They're the ones eroding Western civilisation or whatever, I'm just a plain-speaking common sense meat pie pint of bitter queen mum Eurocrats it's a Christian country wogs go home one man one woman lovely cakes and Winston Churchill. Y'see.

Did Narz actually call for the reversal of most of women's gains, or is he just irritated with the excesses and attitude of CFC feminists?

It's not clear why it has to be one or the other. I'm tempted to call that a false dichotomy.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

@Cheezy the Wiz
If part of feminism is that a white man is not allowed to argue, then there is no wonder that this movement is met with so much antagonism by now. It just doesn't follow that privilege makes opinions by default irrelevant and a lack of privilege by default relevant.

If you don't like it, take it up with the Judeo-Bolshevik Central Committee. They're the ones eroding Western civilisation or whatever, I'm just a plain-speaking common sense meat pie pint of bitter queen mum Eurocrats it's a Christian country wogs go home one man one woman lovely cakes and Winston Churchill. Y'see.

I see your parody. It just seems totally misplaced to me. Like arguing ghosts rather than actual people. I mean I can see those people existing, but I am afraid to actually find them you will have to actually investigate them and not just jump to conclusions.

 

[Traitorfish]

It's a point of feminism that white men aren't allowed to argue without first considering what it might be like to be somebody who is not a white man. That people of colour are best acquainted with the experiences of people of colour and that women are best acquainted with the experiences of women, and that if white people or men want to get involved in these discussions, they have to begin with those experiences.

 

[NovaKart]

Because it's pathetic. The man could have easily restrained that woman, so of course no one reacted.

MRA's are utterly pathetic, miserable groups of conspiracy theorists, outright misogynists, etc. They are not serious groups.

It's not always easy for a man to restrain a woman and more difficult without assaulting her, in which case he might be blamed for whatever injury she sustains.

One can bring up the issue without adhering to typical MRA beliefs.

 

[Oruc]

@Cheezy the Wiz
If part of feminism is that a white man is not allowed to argue, then there is no wonder that this movement is met with so much antagonism by now. It just doesn't follow that privilege makes opinions by default irrelevant and a lack of privilege by default relevant.

It was that thinking that blew a hole in the occupy movement, co-opted by a bunch of fools.

Edit: how is this new to you? they've been saying it for quite awhile.

 

[NovaKart]

@Cheezy the Wiz
If part of feminism is that a white man is not allowed to argue, then there is no wonder that this movement is met with so much antagonism by now. It just doesn't follow that privilege makes opinions by default irrelevant and a lack of privilege by default relevant.

Yeah, I agree. Otherwise it's "I'm always right and you can't have an opinion."

 

[Borachio]

Perhaps it's best not to argue at all. But instead try to listen to what other people say.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

@Cheezy the Wiz
If part of feminism is that a white man is not allowed to argue, then there is no wonder that this movement is met with so much antagonism by now. It just doesn't follow that privilege makes opinions by default irrelevant and a lack of privilege by default relevant.

Yeah, I agree. Otherwise it's "I'm always right and you can't have an opinion."

This:

It's a point of feminism that white men aren't allowed to argue without first considering what it might be like to be somebody who is not a white man.

I recognise that might be difficult, but it's necessary, and it's worthwhile.

I did not say they could not argue, I said that they should try and listen for a change.

 

[Phrossack]

Yeah, I agree. Otherwise it's "I'm always right and you can't have an opinion."

Join the club, man. It's getting bigger every week. Part of the concept of a discussion board is that people are supposed to, you know, discuss things, and when one side of the debate angrily denies the other the right to speak, it kind of breaks the system.

 

[Borachio]

I did not say they could not argue, I said that they should try and listen for a change.

Listening is a two-way street.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

In what way does posting online deny another the right to speak? No one is speaking over you. Your posts are still there, as readable as if we were never here.

If anyone, it's you lot that shuts down the discussion by refusing to listen to the other side. You just arrive and say why everything is wrong, without so much as a consideration or attempt to understand. I at least attempted to explain things to people, provided links, citations, and proof, and what I got in return was mansplaining. That's not discussion. Remove the plank in your own eye first.

Listening is a two-way street.

...Yes? Care to provide evidence of where I "haven't listened?"

 

[Borachio]

But, Mr Wiz, have you attempted to understand views which are not your own?

 

[Traitorfish]

Listening is a two-way street.

I don't think that white men are under-represented in that regard, at least not insofar as they are white men.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

But, Mr Wiz, have you attempted to understand views which are not your own?

I used to not be a feminist. I used to be rather similar to the people here, who are so vehemently against every aspect of feminism, and so unashamed of their own masculine privilege. I used to be like those MRAs, even a little like that murderer, alone and blaming women for my troubles, believing in chivalry and my own deservedness of women for being a good gentleman. And yet today I am none of those things. I didn't get that way by standing in an echo chamber, my friend. I still listen to what these people say here, but I already know what they're thinking and I don't need to consider much or be made to understand what they're saying, because I used to think them myself. I do understand. I just don't agree.

On the other hand, it's highly unlikely that any one of them used to be a feminist or feminist ally, or used to be woman [although in all fairness, we have had a few trans posters in the past]. Perhaps it might be beneficial for these white men to consider the idea that, as white men, they don't already know everything and have the answer to everything.

 

[Borachio]

Well. Fine. Can't argue with that.

But then, if you can understand their views, you must surely to be able to appreciate how hard it is to change them? Or maybe you can't. Maybe it was easy for you to change.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

I used to not be a feminist. I used to be rather similar to the people here, who are so vehemently against every aspect of feminism, and so unashamed of their own masculine privilege. I used to be like those MRAs, even a little like that murderer, alone and blaming women for my troubles, believing in chivalry and my own deservedness of women for being a good gentleman. And yet today I am none of those things. I didn't get that way by standing in an echo chamber, my friend. I still listen to what these people say here, but I already know what they're thinking and I don't need to consider much or be made to understand what they're saying, because I used to think them myself.

On the other hand, it's highly unlikely that any one of them used to be a feminist or feminist ally, or used to be woman [although in all fairness, we have had a few trans posters in the past]. Perhaps it might be beneficial for these white men to consider the idea that, as white men, they don't already know everything and have the answer to everything.

Well, have you ever been a creationist?

 

[Oruc]

Well. Fine. Can't argue with that.

How has answered your question at all? All he said was he didn't need to listen to them because he already knows what they think/can read minds.
Edit: just because he was t&$t before why must he project that onto others, we aren't him, we most likely don't believe the same things

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Well, have you ever been a creationist?

Yes. I was raised a Christian, neoconservative, American nationalist. Sometimes the older forumers here like to dig up my very early posts and have a few laughs about it.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

It's a point of feminism that white men aren't allowed to argue without first considering what it might be like to be somebody who is not a white man. That people of colour are best acquainted with the experiences of people of colour and that women are best acquainted with the experiences of women, and that if white people or men want to get involved in these discussions, they have to begin with those experiences.

I certainly see your point here and I am willing to concede that I lack adequate awareness of their troubles. I see how important that is and how at the same it is all too convenient to not bother with that as much as it would be necessary.
However, I still can not befriend myself with the dogma of "our worry needs to be starting point of it all". People come from different angles and life experiences and I am with Borochia that the most fruitful approach is to respect every one of those equally. Whereas respect means they deserve engagement and recognition. Not just dismissal.
Call it the spirit of an open discussion. That is at least something I personally believe in. And this is what I see Phrossack advocating.

or tl/dr - what Borachio said on both parties doing some listening (and I see myself as guilty of being too eager to argue - though at some point one of course still needs to argue - it is a blurry hard to manage line I guess)

Edit: how is this new to you? they've been saying it for quite awhile.

Dunno, must have overlooked it.

Perhaps it's best not to argue at all. But instead try to listen to what other people say.

That kinda misses the point of the internet