So what some of y'all don't seem to understand, is that you want women to walk through the world with an "all men" mentality. "She should have known not to put herself into that position." "She shouldn't have been drinking." "She shouldn't have been wearing that." Etc. The implication is, she should have known that MEN can't control themselves. That any situation involving men, alcohol, drugs, walking at night, etc is her not being smart enough around men. So either women are supposed to think it's all men so she doesn't get assaulted, or she can be naive and say it's not every man and get assaulted. Saying it's "not all men" is invalid because women have to treat the world like it is all men otherwise those same men will say it's her fault for being assaulted.
Yeah like, the argument has never actually been that every single man in the world is a monster who would hurt you, but you have no idea who is and who isn't, and there are so many who are, that you kinda have to assume things about people. It's awful, but until we change as a society, women are forced to be wary of all men.
Kinda like how most people aren't thieves, but you have to view every stranger as a potential thief and not give them any opportunity to steal your shit.
You contradict yourselves. It's not about "it is", it is about "it could be". Of course you need to be cautious, but of course people get butthurt, if you accuse them of something they didn't do. The world isn't black and white. But still, fuck those people that be like "ShE sHoUlD hAvE dOnE/nOt DoNe xyz..."
I think you're missing the point here. No woman is actually accusing every single man on the planet of being a secret rapist. The people who get angry over being accused of that are just arguing with ghosts, because that isn't what women are actually saying.
But why saying it like that then? The fault isn't with the people misinterpreting it, if what you're saying differs from what you are meaning. Especially if you're attacking them with it (even though it isn't meant like that)
Does it actually matter? If you understand what "it's all men until it's no men" means then why do you care? I guess it could be phrased differently as "it could be any man" or something, but the point of the statement is to contrast with the "not all men" stuff. Because yeah, it's not all men, but women are forced to live their lives as if it is. Their well-being and ability to not be assaulted is more important than how semantics hurt our feelings.
It does. Because not everyone knows what it means. If you are saying "all men are...", then of course people will understand "all men are...". That shouldn't be hard to understand.
And of course it is important to talk about all the bad stuff happening to women. I don't want to say anything against that. But how does it help to throw every man under the bus for that? And how does one thing exclude the other? You could phrase it properly and still talk about the bad stuff happening to women and help them
I would just like to point out how much time and energy you're spending quibbling about the words we use.
Which means that you're NOT going after abusers. You're NOT addressing the real problem here.
So guess what? You're doing The Exact Thing we're talking about when we say "all men."
Specifically, you're enabling the abusers by putting the responsibility on everyone else, especially victims, to be careful with our words -- as if that actually matters in the grand scheme of things and would help prevent the abuse were talking about.
Surely you know that we could dress our language up in the most harmless, euphemistic, non-threatening, pedantically accurate terms we can possibly think of AND THE ABUSE WOULD STILL HAPPEN ON A LARGE SCALE.
So, what exactly is your goal here?
You don't want to be thrown under the bus? You don't want to be lumped in with rapists and abusers?
YOU lumped YOURSELF in, bro. You're just upset that we've identified you.
Are you stupid or ignorant? 😂 I've said with every comment, that it is important to address the problems you're also talking about. And this whole comment section is exactly about what I'm addressing. So your argument is completely invalid
So, how much time do you spend talking to other men about these issues and how to address it amongst yourselves vs. how much time you spend telling women what to do and say about this issue?
In other words, are you paying lip service, or are you actually helping with the issue itself?
We already know what the problem is, my dude. You're not actually helping here. In fact, you're accomplishing the exact opposite because you're distracting BOTH of us from the real issues AND you're specifically doing the things we say are enabling the abusers.
But you know better than we do? You're more of an authority on this issue than we are?
No. You're not. Buddy. Come on. Ffs.
If you can't take this criticism in the way it needs to be taken, then you're doing The Thing, again. And you're definitely not the nice guy you think you are, much less an ally.
Firsly, I actually talk a lot more about the problems women are facing than this topic here. But I can reverse what you're saying back to you. Because yes, this doesn't change anything for the people that already are giving women the respect they deserve. But like some vegans facing meat eaters with hate (I myself am vegan), you are distancing the ones that actually need to hear about this stuff, those that we could reach and might switch over to the good side, even further away. So you're actually doing the exact opposite of what you want to achieve. THAT is why it's important. In the end it is to help women. I know it is stupid, but that's just how things work. It doesn't matter how much you think that this is nonsense
How precisely does it harm you to be lumped in with all men? And how is any offense you take so bad that you'll put a tiny "sure yeah rape is bad" in and then go on and on and on about how infuriated you are? You're outraged by women seeing all men as potential threats just because we experience abuse from men our whole lives.
768
u/kittymcg19 3d ago
So what some of y'all don't seem to understand, is that you want women to walk through the world with an "all men" mentality. "She should have known not to put herself into that position." "She shouldn't have been drinking." "She shouldn't have been wearing that." Etc. The implication is, she should have known that MEN can't control themselves. That any situation involving men, alcohol, drugs, walking at night, etc is her not being smart enough around men. So either women are supposed to think it's all men so she doesn't get assaulted, or she can be naive and say it's not every man and get assaulted. Saying it's "not all men" is invalid because women have to treat the world like it is all men otherwise those same men will say it's her fault for being assaulted.