Differing reactions to men & women getting abused

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I suppose there's nothing more I can reasonably expect of someone.

Although I dedicated so much time to explaining the one, very much challenged, aspect of my point, I was intending in the beginning to demonstrate that these things aren't mutually exclusive. So the fact that he had an entitled attitude about everything, from affluence to race to sexuality to everyday material things, are part and parcel of a more generalized social consciousness of hierarchy which manifests itself in different ways. In sexuality it manifests itself as patriarchy, in economics as classism, in social relations as ableism and/or racism. He can be an entitled brat from birth, and still be a misogynist bastard. The fact that his arrogance predates a so-called "formation of sexism" in his life doesn't mean that misogyny isn't the cause of his violent lashing out toward women. Remember that he went to a sorority house to shoot up girls, he didn't target the specific women he killed, he went there to kill as many as he could. He luckily only got two. All the men he killed, though, were specifically targeted on his part. There's been an effort to absolve him of misogyny as a motive because he killed more men that women, but the only reason he killed the men was because of misogyny. He was angry at the men because they possessed or had otherwise managed to acquire the female "property" that he wanted but could not have. Without that central aspect of disregard and hatred for womankind, none of his mass murder rampage makes sense. People aren't "just" entitled and decide to murder people, there's always more to it than that.

 

[Borachio]

I still don't get it.

What crazy logic drove him to it?

What on earth did he hope to achieve for himself?

It makes no sense, to me, for him to kill other people, and himself, for any reason; but simply because he couldn't get laid seems beyond all reason.

I find it especially bizarre because at his age I hadn't got laid either. And did I want to?!!!

Spoiler :

I most certainly did.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I'm afraid suicide isn't something I can even try to explain.

 

[useless]

It's probably already been mentioned by this attack bears similarity to Marc Lepine's massacre in Canada.

 

[Camikaze]

Well it's held by materialists that people in different material relations experience things differently, and that this shapes their worldview. Thus, we as men cannot understand women's experiences, we as whites cannot understand the experiences of POCs, etc, because their material relation to others and themselves is different from ours. To rectify this, we must learn from them about those experiences, so that we can make informed decisions based upon them.

Thanks for the explanation (and sorry for the late reply here - I haven't had time to keep up with the thread).

However, I don't really see how this counters the point (perhaps it's not meant to).

As I have already explained, mine are informed by, and largely come from, women and specifically feminists. And, as I have already explained, the problem only extends to issues surrounding feminism and the like, and when speaking to women about it. I don't lecture women about feminism, I listen to them talk about it, and I talk with them about it...

I think the problem others may see in you saying this is that you seem to be implying that you have some sort of authority to speak on behalf of these women and feminists you've spoken to. But given you're not a mindless automaton, anything you hear from them and then further transmit has been subjected to your own interpretation. So in an attempt to relay what you've heard from speaking with women and feminists, you're effectively telling us what has passed muster with you as a white man. No matter how agreeable the rest of your argument might be, it's hard for a reader to get past such an apparent contradiction. It reads as if you're dismissing the right of a white man to contest the subject or judge feminism, whilst simultaneously doing that yourself.

I pretty much agree with Gori's posts.

(This all, BTW, is not directly related to the Rodgers topic - I think I pretty much agree with you there, though I haven't read that part of the thread enough to have a strong opinion on the topic)

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I certainly cannot argue with the proposition that men should engage with feminists themselves more, instead of just taking my word for things.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Sadly, Cheezy, even that doesn't resolve the methodological conundrum Camikazie is pointing to. Even stuff I (or he or you) would hear directly from a feminist is going to be processed by my (or his or your) irredeemably male mind; only such of it as a male can process will really get through. If we adopt the position that the only kind of person who can know an experience is the kind of person who experiences it, it drives toward that kind of solipsism.

 

[Crezth]

Sadly, Cheezy, even that doesn't resolve the methodological conundrum Camikazie is pointing to. Even stuff I (or he or you) would hear directly from a feminist is going to be processed by my (or his or your) irredeemably male mind; only such of it as a male can process will really get through. If we adopt the position that the only kind of person who can know an experience is the kind of person who experiences it, it drives toward that kind of solipsism.

I'm not sure this is salient. One doesn't have to know an experience firsthand to understand it on an emotional level, which is also what's important. You don't need a robust metaphysical cognitive toolset to understand fear when a woman tells you that she's afraid to turn down men at parties or leave her drink alone on the bar.

The reason you, or I, or Cheezy, or let's say Camikaze have mental blocks when it comes to appreciating the scope and dimensions of feminism has little and less to do with our being male and everything to do with our being male and raised in a patriarchal society. Well, you might put a stop to it right there. Raise the hands and shrug the shoulders and say "Alas, there's nothing to be done." Or you can look at the model you hope to adopt and aspire for it in the hopes that, even if you never get there yourself, you will have laid the groundwork for the next generation, and can write on your epitaph that you fought the wiles and wickedness of your programming all your life, a never-complacent twitch in the system.

 

[Gori the Grey]

You don't need a robust metaphysical cognitive toolset to understand fear when a woman tells you that she's afraid to turn down men at parties or leave her drink alone on the bar.

Would that be because I was understanding it as a human, who had also felt fear?

 

[Crezth]

Yes, that's the idea.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Can we have no more talk, then, about men, as men, being disqualified from commenting on issues having to do with women?

 

[Traitorfish]

There was never any talk of it to begin with.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

I'm not sure this is salient. One doesn't have to know an experience firsthand to understand it on an emotional level, which is also what's important. You don't need a robust metaphysical cognitive toolset to understand fear when a woman tells you that she's afraid to turn down men at parties or leave her drink alone on the bar.

Funny because that's precisely the reason that's been given several times as to why a "white man" is unfit to have an opinion on feminist or racial matters - the fact that we don't and can't "know" what it's like to suffer racism or sexism directly. My argument was precisely this, that using empathy and being able to put oneself in another person's shoes is one of the cornerstones of the human condition and much of our social and judicial processes are based around entirely this sort of thinking. So which is it? It can't be both.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

There was never any talk of it to begin with.

Apart from all that repeated talk of precisely that.

 

[Crezth]

Extremely defensive posting.

 

[Kaitzilla]

I admit, it is hard to see men being abused by women as a serious issue (I guess because I, myself, am not really afraid of direct assault from a woman, underhanded tactics yes). However, I don't really think it's funny either, just kind of sad.

Anyway, pop some corn everyone. I'm looking forward to some thread dramatics to rival the acting in the youtube video.

Time for a blonde joke!

An old, blind cowboy wanders into an all-girl biker bar by mistake.

He winds his way to a bar stool and orders some coffee.

After sitting there for a while, he yells to the waiter, 'Hey, you wanna hear a blonde joke?'

The bar immediately falls absolutely silent. In a very deep, husky voice, the woman next to him says, 'Before you tell that joke, Cowboy, I think it is only fair, given that you are blind, that you should know five things:

1. The bartender is a blonde girl with a baseball bat.

2. The bouncer is a blonde girl.

3. I'm a 6-foot tall, 175-pound blonde woman with a black belt in karate.

4. The woman sitting next to me is blonde and a professional weight-lifter.

5. The lady to your right is blonde and a professional wrestler.

'Now, think about it seriously, Mister. Do you still wanna tell that joke?'

The blind cowboy thinks for a second, shakes his head, and mutters,

'HELL NO.... not if I'm gonna have to explain it five times...'

 

[Borachio]

(I shouldn't laugh, should I? But I did.)

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Sadly, Cheezy, even that doesn't resolve the methodological conundrum Camikazie is pointing to. Even stuff I (or he or you) would hear directly from a feminist is going to be processed by my (or his or your) irredeemably male mind; only such of it as a male can process will really get through. If we adopt the position that the only kind of person who can know an experience is the kind of person who experiences it, it drives toward that kind of solipsism.

It's a good thing that isn't what I said, then.

I said that we can't know, as privileged people, what it's like to be underprivileged in the specific ways that certain people experience it. We can understand it through them, because, you know, we're human beings who are capable of communication and empathy and all those wonderful social exchanges, but us, a bunch of men, sitting in a room discussing women's experiences, can never understand that by ourselves. Switch out women with POC or LGBTQ, and men with white people or hetero-cis men, and the result is the same. We have to listen to understand, but we can never really understand, because prejudice is something they experience constantly, and us in our understandings and even in little exercises we might to do simulate it, we get to walk away from that experience as soon as it is over. Being underprivileged for five minutes, or even a day or a week is nothing like being underprivileged from cradle to grave. We need to appreciate that in our efforts to understand.

I did not say that our male minds bear some kind of original sin which prevents us from ever understanding it. This is an invention by my detractors.

But I will happily confess to being a "secondary source" on the issue of women's experiences, which was the point of my reply to Camikaze. However, I am skeptical of the impact that real women's experiences would have on much of this crowd, as I have posted links to them previously, and been roundly insulted and had them laughed off the page by the all-knowing men here.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Here's a pretty relevant article [from a not always great website] I came across this morning, which words things better than I could have. Worth considering, before we dive into yet another useless argument.

http://feministing.com/2014/05/30/an-open-letter-to-privileged-people-who-play-devils-advocate/?fb_action_ids=822785591066936&fb_action_types=og.likes

An open letter to privileged people who play devil’s advocate

You know who you are. You are that white guy in an Ethnic Studies class who’s exploring the idea that poor people might have babies to stay on welfare. Or some person arguing over drinks that maybe a lot of women do fake rape for attention. Or, recently, someone insisting that I consider the idea that Elliot Rodger could have been a madman and an anomaly, not at all a product of a white supremacist and misogynistic society.

Most of the time, it’s clear that you actually believe the arguments you claim to have just for the heck of it. However, you know that these beliefs are unpopular, largely because they make you sound selfish and privileged, so you blame them on the “devil.” Here’s the thing: the devil doesn’t need any more advocates. He’s got plenty of power without you helping him.

These discussions may feel like “playing” to you, but to many people in the room, it’s their lives you are “playing” with. The reason it feels like a game to you is because these are issues that probably do not directly affect you. It doesn’t matter whether most mass shootings are targeted at women who rejected the gunman if you are a man – though it should, since misogyny kills men too. If you are white, it doesn’t matter whether people of color are being racially profiled or not. You can attach puppet strings to dialogues about real issues because at the end of the day, you can walk away from the tangled mess you’ve exacerbated.

To be fair, there are many privileged devil’s advocates out there who are truly trying to figure things out. I know people who think best out loud, throwing ideas at me to see which sticks to their “friendly neighborhood feminist.” Your kind like to come at a concept from every angle before deciding what you think. You ask those of us who are knowledgeable on the subject to explain it to you again and again because in this world it is harder for you to believe that maybe the deck is stacked in your favor than to think of us as lazy, whining, or liars.

It is physically and emotionally draining to be called upon to prove that these systems of power exist. For many of us, just struggling against them is enough — now you want us to break them down for you? Imagine having weights tied to your feet and a gag around your mouth, and then being asked to explain why you think you are at an unfair disadvantage. Imagine watching a video where a young man promises to kill women who chose not to sleep with him and then being forced to engage with the idea that maybe you are just a hysterical feminist seeing misogyny where there is none. It is incredibly painful to feel that in order for you to care about my safety, I have to win this verbal contest you have constructed “for fun.”

For those devil’s advocates who are trying to learn, I suggest you explore other avenues. Consider that you are not paying your friends to break down concepts that are often painfully lived experiences for them, and be mindful of their time and energy. Be grateful (and show it), and listen carefully and thoughtfully when they are generous enough to talk about these experiences with you.

Some might challenge that I am shutting myself off to new ideas and censoring important opportunities for growth. But these ideas you are forcing me to consider are not new. They stem from centuries of inequality and your desperate desire to keep them relevant is based in the fact that you benefit from their existence. Let it go. You did NOT come up with these racist, misogynistic theories. We&#8217;ve heard them before and we are <f-ing> tired of being asked to consider them, just one. more. time.

So dearest devil&#8217;s advocates: speak for yourself, not for the &#8220;devil.&#8221; Teach yourself. Consider that people have been advocating for your cause for centuries, so take a seat. It&#8217;s our time to be heard.

 

[Gori the Grey]

There was never any talk of it to begin with.

No more of this kind of thing, then, however you want to pussyfoot around what is pretty flatly being said here:

Christ. You're a man. Your opinion as a man about this issue doesn't matter.

And now:

but we can never really understand,

There you go again. What is this "real" understanding? And how does it differ from understanding? Who has it? And how is it to bear in discussions?