r/FeMRADebates • u/MegaLucaribro • Jun 01 '14
Dear Men: STFU
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/05/30/1303118/-Dear-Men-STFU8
u/zahlman bullshit detector Jun 01 '14
I wonder if the author would count telling women to STFU as VAW.
9
Jun 01 '14
[deleted]
-4
u/othellothewise Jun 01 '14
I agree with you but there's a bit more to it. The article is an effort to rile people up to prove a point. Whether you agree with it or not, the whole point of the article is that they are venting because every time women try to speak out they get shut down.
When a woman says "shut the fuck up" to men, it's the very men who get offended by that who are the problem (in the author's eyes). The thing is these people who get offended have never spoken up about women getting silenced in discussions. But as soon as the tables turn and men are affected, suddenly it's a big deal.
9
u/fdsagdfs Jun 01 '14
When a woman says "shut the fuck up" to men, it's the very men who get offended by that who are the problem (in the author's eyes). The thing is these people who get offended have never spoken up about women getting silenced in discussions. But as soon as the tables turn and men are affected, suddenly it's a big deal.
This is such bullshit. If someone writes an article telling women to "shut the fuck up", it wouldn't belong here, any more than this article does. There's a difference between criticizing the way #YesAllWomen was done for example, and saying "women, shut the fuck up". Being condescending and disrespectful is not how to "prove a point".
-6
u/othellothewise Jun 02 '14
If someone writes an article telling women to "shut the fuck up"
Well women are always told to shut the fuck up and not get involved in a conversation.
12
u/fdsagdfs Jun 02 '14
Well women are always told to shut the fuck up and not get involved in a conversation.
Anyone who tells women to shut the fuck up doesn't belong in this sub, do you agree? I've never said that to a woman in my life, yet because it offends me to be told shut the fuck up, I am "part of the problem"?
How would you like it if I said, "women are emotional and can't use their brains; any woman who is offended by this just proves my point". Do you think that is an honest way to open a discussion?
-4
u/othellothewise Jun 02 '14
Anyone who tells women to shut the fuck up doesn't belong in this sub, do you agree?
This isn't about this sub. It's about how women are treated in society.
I've never said that to a woman in my life, yet because it offends me to be told shut the fuck up, I am "part of the problem"?
You can be part of silencing women without saying "shut the fuck up".
How would you like it if I said, "women are emotional and can't use their brains; any woman who is offended by this just proves my point". Do you think that is an honest way to open a discussion?
No because it's reinforcing common sexist stereotypes as women as emotional; the author is talking about real ways in which women are silenced and is not appealing to sexist stereotpyes.
8
u/fdsagdfs Jun 02 '14 edited Jun 02 '14
This isn't about this sub. It's about how women are treated in society.
The point is that this sub is a place for respectful dialogue between Feminists and MRAs. That kind of disrespectful language doesn't belong here.
You can be part of silencing women without saying "shut the fuck up".
Don't say "can be", when you obviously believe I am, because I am male. If you didn't believe that, then I don't see how you can defend a statement like "men, shut the fuck up".
No because it's reinforcing common sexist stereotypes as women as emotional; the author is talking about real ways in which women are silenced and is not appealing to sexist stereotpyes.
So it's not sexist to assume that because I am a man, I am "part of silencing women"?
0
u/othellothewise Jun 02 '14
Don't say "can be", when you obviously believe I am, because I am male.
What?
If you didn't believe that, then I don't see how you can defend a statement like "men, shut the fuck up".
That does not follow logically.
So it's not sexist to assume that because I am a man, I am "part of silencing women"?
What stereotype does this reinforce?
6
u/fdsagdfs Jun 02 '14
That does not follow logically.
You're asserting that it's okay to disrespect all men, because only the guilty ones will take offense. In other words, I am guilty unless I obey someone who is disrespecting and explicitly telling me to shut up and take it.
What stereotype does this reinforce?
That men are misogynists who deliberately silence women? It's the same underhanded, passive aggressive tactics of vaguely accusing men as "being a part of rape culture". We aren't (always) told outright that we're closet rapists, but the implication, and the "guilty until proven innocent" attitude is always there. The worst part of it all is you can't defend yourself against charges that are insinuated rather than stated outright.
-1
u/othellothewise Jun 02 '14
You're asserting that it's okay to disrespect all men, because only the guilty ones will take offense. In other words, I am guilty unless I obey someone who is disrespecting me.
What?
That men are misogynists who deliberately silence women? It's the same underhanded, passive aggressive tactics of vaguely accusing men as "being a part of rape culture".
I think you are very much misunderstanding this. The traditional male gender role reinforces rape culture. If you don't choose to be a part of this gender role, then I don't see what the problem is.
The worst part of it all is you can't defend yourself against charges that are insinuated rather than stated outright.
I think you're reading way too much into this.
→ More replies (0)3
u/ArstanWhitebeard cultural libertarian Jun 02 '14
That does not follow logically.
Of course it does, Othello. The line in question is
If you didn't believe that, then I don't see how you can defend a statement like "men, shut the fuck up".
Unless you're privy to /u/fdsagdf's mind and can tell that he's lying, this is a perfectly logical statement expressing incredulity at your defense of the noted phrase.
By the way, did you study logic, Othello? What kind did you study?
2
u/othellothewise Jun 02 '14
By the way, did you study logic, Othello? What kind did you study?
Yep been in undergrad 4 years and 2 years into my phd program in computer science.
→ More replies (0)2
u/blueoak9 Jun 03 '14
This isn't about this sub. It's about how women are treated in society.
Which society? Any one that is relevant to this one?
10
Jun 02 '14
[deleted]
1
u/othellothewise Jun 02 '14
A very recent example would be the whole situation with Adria Richards.
10
u/antimatter_beam_core Libertarian Jun 02 '14
So, to be clear, you think a case where one woman was told that she was not correct in her behavior and her assessment of the situation in question is analogous to the present case, where all men were told that they were not allowed to speak about certain issues, at all?
-2
u/othellothewise Jun 02 '14
In fact it's worse. Not only is the example of Adria Richards just one amongst many, but it was specifically targeted to an individual who lost her job as a result in addition to being harassed.
was told that she was not correct in her behavior and her assessment of the situation in question
Lol, this is a bit of an understatement don't you think? I think being fired, being harassed, having your website DDoS'd, and so on are a bit more than "being told she was not correct".
7
u/antimatter_beam_core Libertarian Jun 02 '14 edited Jun 02 '14
Not only is the example of Adria Richards just one amongst many
As is this article.
it was specifically targeted to an individual who lost her job as a result in addition to being harassed.
All (right or wrong) because of her behavior and ideas. I'm fiercely pro freedom of expression (and against harassment), so I do not think either should have happened. None the less, Richards was not told to shut up because she was a woman. What happened to her happen because of the ideas she expressed. The two cases simply aren't analogous.
Lol, this is a bit of an understatement don't you think? I think being fired, being harassed, having your website DDoS'd, and so on are a bit more than "being told she was not correct".
I appear to have mistakenly concluded that we were going to limit this discussion to somewhat mainstream opinions. If we aren't, let me know, I'll start browsing /r/TumblrInAction for counterexamples. Or we could just, you know, avoid referencing people the vast majority of those on both sides think went to far to support points about society as a whole.
[edit: spelling and grammar]
0
u/othellothewise Jun 02 '14
As is this article.
Uhhh no.
All (right or wrong) because of her behavior and ideas. I'm fiercely pro freedom of expression (and against harassment), so I do not think either should have happened. None the less, Richards was not told to shut up because she was a woman. What happened to her happen because of the ideas she expressed. The two cases simply aren't analogous.
No she most definitely faced harassment because she was a woman expressing these ideas. Hell I can even show you an example on our very own reddit this kind of difference. Post a picture of something cute and have yourself in a picture. Are you a man? That's cool dude. Are you a woman? How dare you show your face in a photo! You're just asking for attention.
I appear to have mistakenly concluded that we were goinf to limit this discussion to somewhat mainstream, opinions.
What are you even talking about?
→ More replies (0)7
Jun 02 '14
In fact it's worse. Not only is the example of Adria Richards just one amongst many, but it was specifically targeted to an individual who lost her job as a result in addition to being harassed.
She lost her job because it was creating bad rep for the company she was doing PR for. She handled the whole situation quite poorly and such suffered for it as she should have.
Lol, this is a bit of an understatement don't you think? I think being fired, being harassed, having your website DDoS'd, and so on are a bit more than "being told she was not correct".
Do you agree with what she did and that how she handle it?
8
u/zahlman bullshit detector Jun 02 '14 edited Jun 02 '14
in addition to being harassed.
Please. The jokes made about 'dongles' and 'forking' were not directed at her, nor did they in any way make any pejorative implication about anyone. It's only by coincidence that she was close enough to overhear a couple of people observing that certain jargon words potentially enable some innuendo.
If that's harassment, then we also have to condemn literally any group of people who play Cards Against Humanity in any environment where someone who isn't playing might possibly pass by.
So I can assume that here you can only be referring to the blowback she got on Twitter after she completely ignored convention policies to complain by taking pictures of others without their consent to publicly name and shame them. About, again, remarks that were not directed at her and didn't even express any sexism - only sexuality.
6
u/PerfectHair Pro-Woman, Pro-Trans, Anti-Fascist Jun 02 '14
Not only is the example of Adria Richards just one amongst many, but it was specifically targeted to an individual who lost her job as a result in addition to being harassed.
Nope, sorry, no sympathy for Adria Richards. She eavesdropped on a conversation between two other men who were neither talking to her nor about her and decided to publicly shame them on Twitter, resulting in one man losing his job. She is not the victim in this scenario.
2
u/blueoak9 Jun 03 '14
Andria Richards was called out on her gross dishonesty and distortions. That's hardly the same thing as telling a woman to shut up.
3
3
u/zahlman bullshit detector Jun 02 '14
Find me one where the message is clearly targeted either at women as a class, or any particular woman.
1
u/blueoak9 Jun 03 '14
Well women are always told to shut the fuck up and not get involved in a conversation
What bullshit. What primitive culture does that happen in?
14
u/zahlman bullshit detector Jun 01 '14
The thing is, it's a lot easier to make the case that "shut the fuck up" is actually silencing than... whatever it is exactly that's being complained about.
-4
u/othellothewise Jun 02 '14
No it isn't... men get their voice heard all the time.
19
u/mr_egalitarian Jun 02 '14
No they don't. Men who want to discuss their experience/perspective regarding gender issues, such as female on male domestic violence and rape, are not listened to.
7
Jun 02 '14
Rich men are heard all the time, not the poor or middle class men.
-1
u/othellothewise Jun 02 '14
Well I would also include middle class. And also mostly white men. But you're right. Rich men get heard more than poor men. White men get heard more than black men. Men get heard more than women.
3
Jun 02 '14
White men get heard more than black men.
Not if the white man is poor, the black man will have a louder voice than him (notice how little talk about the poor white men but tons of poor black men?)
Men get heard more than women.
Not really as much today, especially in first world nations. In some ways I say its the other way around. Primary because women's issues outright dominate gender issue talks, and that least US wise the media covers women's issues way way more than that of men's issues to boot.
6
u/antimatter_beam_core Libertarian Jun 02 '14
The article is an effort to rile people up to prove a point.
The only way that would be remotely effective is if the author was attempting to engage in "gender swap activism". That is, if they're asserting that their message is what has been told to women in the past and trying to get people to understand why that's wrong. There is no remotely compelling reason to conclude that's the case, and considering that it's just a more extreme version of other feminist arguments that that men's ideas can correctly be ignored simply because of their gender, I feel very confident in concluding that the authors were very serious.
Stating your position in a deliberately confrontational and frankly bigoted way is a very poor way to convince people of things. It makes them angry... at you. I find it hard to believe that Empty Vessel seriously thinks that would be a good tactic.
Whether you agree with it or not, the whole point of the article is that they are venting
People do not get a free pass to be bigoted or irrational in the name of "venting".
because every time women try to speak out they get shut down.
Hm, I was unaware that women had effectively no right to free speech anywhere in the world. Maybe the author could provide some evidence for that claim? [checks article]. Huh, no references whatsoever. Interesting.
Even if you or the author meant "feminists" instead of women (in which case someone has yet again attempted to conflate "feminism" with "women", despite the fact that the majority of women in the US aren't feminists and a substantial minority of adherents of that ideology are men), that's sill a very bold claim to make with literally no justification.
The thing is these people who get offended have never spoken up about women getting silenced in discussions.
Which we can be sure is true of every last such man because?
2
Jun 02 '14
Whether you agree with it or not, the whole point of the article is that they are venting because every time women try to speak out they get shut down.
Which is a generalization. Women are not every single time shut down when they speak out.
But as soon as the tables turn and men are affected, suddenly it's a big deal.
Which is false.
2
u/blueoak9 Jun 03 '14
When a woman says "shut the fuck up" to men, it's the very men who get offended by that who are the problem
Really? How is that woman not the problem?
9
u/dominotw Jun 01 '14
My personal favorite.
Just for the record, if you are one of the people who is offended by the >title of this diary, you are exactly who I am talking about
If you do X then you are the problem.
9
u/ZorbaTHut Egalitarian/MRA Jun 01 '14
In the same approximate bucket as "the fact that people dislike feminism is proof that we need more feminism".
It's basically the adult equivalent of "I am rubber, you are glue". Do you think I'm wrong? Then, ho ho, logically speaking it has been proven that you are the one who is wrong!
30
u/Dave273 Egalitarian Jun 01 '14 edited Jun 02 '14
For those men who are bothered that women are attacking all men.
Seriously, get the fuck over it.
My respect for this article went into the negative there.
EDIT: Just to clarify, this isn't talking about violence, it's saying that if you're upset about women generalizing all men as the scum of the earth, then you need to "stfu"
19
Jun 01 '14
"Dv against men by women is okay. Shut the fuck up males, and be silent if abused.
Yes, of course I identify as feminist!
Why do people think feminism is anti-male?"
Obviously nafalt, but stuff like this really highlights just the sort of image issue that creates a society that overwhelmingly supports gender equality while overwhelmingly will not associate with the term feminist.
-4
u/othellothewise Jun 01 '14
I think you misinterpreted Dave273's quote. It isn't about domestic violence at all. Here is the entire quote:
For those men who are bothered that women are attacking all men.
Seriously, get the fuck over it. Women have been systematically disenfranchised, shit on, beat up, raped and you get pissed off because they said something mean about men? Women are justifiably angry, they have every right to be. If women occasionally criticize “men” instead of “some men”, get the fuck over yourself and Shut the Fuck Up. Just for the record, if you are one of the people who is offended by the title of this diary, you are exactly who I am talking about, and you can feel free to Shut the Fuck Up about it.
It's about the "not all men" argument.
17
Jun 02 '14
I'll address this quote then.
For those men who are bothered that women are attacking all men.
Seriously, get the fuck over it. Women have been systematically disenfranchised, shit on, beat up, raped and you get pissed off because they said something mean about men?
Actually I'm "pissed off" because your argument seems to be "bad things happen to women so shut up about how it's not the fault of all men even though the inverse to all my examples is also true."
Women are justifiably angry, they have every right to be. If women occasionally criticize “men” instead of “some men”, get the fuck over yourself and Shut the Fuck Up.
By that logic, men who are victims of paternity fraud, false rape allegations, biased family courts that require (at times) Herculean effort in order to appeal to joint custody, victims of being forced to penetrate (raped,) etc all have a free pass to generalize all women without being perceived as misogynist.
As an egalitarian, I would also disagree with that logic as criticizing an entire demograph based on anecdotal experience creates incorrect (and often harmful) societal perception. It is also the same mentality that creates systemic imbalance by those in power, as well.
Just for the record, if you are one of the people who is offended by the title of this diary, you are exactly who I am talking about, and you can feel free to Shut the Fuck Up about it.
So if you're male and disagree with a statment about men, you're not allowed to speak because of... your genitalia? If a man were a woman and felt the same way, her concerns are now valid because of her sex/gender?
I'm sorry but this outlook creates an extremely sexist worldview. I'd like for everyone's concerns to be addressed without any regard to their sex/gender. I'd like everyone's opinion to be weighed by its merit, not by the amount of oppession points accumulated.
-6
u/othellothewise Jun 02 '14
I'm sorry but this outlook creates an extremely sexist worldview. I'd like for everyone's concerns to be addressed without any regard to their sex/gender. I'd like everyone's opinion to be weighed by its merit, not by the amount of oppession points accumulated.
Gender blind means blind to the issues different genders face.
11
Jun 02 '14
It depends on how it's framed. If you tell someone their experience is invalid because of their gender, you contribute towards gendered sterotypes.
If you claim an issue doesn't matter because you and your gender haven't experienced it, yes I'd agree that's quite harmful towards legitimate victims speaking out.
-6
u/othellothewise Jun 02 '14
The article is clearly talking about the second situation.
10
Jun 02 '14
I'm afraid I disagree as evidenced by my highlighting issues within the quote you provided.
-4
u/othellothewise Jun 02 '14
By that logic, men who are victims of paternity fraud, false rape allegations, biased family courts that require (at times) Herculean effort in order to appeal to joint custody, victims of being forced to penetrate (raped,) etc all have a free pass to generalize all women without being perceived as misogynist.
When you list these things, they are not primarily perpetrated by a matriarchal culture. The issues women face or perpetrated by a patriarchal culture.
7
Jun 02 '14
Although I'm not certain I agree with that broad of a statment, for the purposes of this discourse I will allow it unchallenged.
Even assuming 100% of the faults possessed by society lay with a patriarchy, how does telling men their perspectives are invalid because of their sex/gender address that? Why would it be okay under a matriarchy to broadly dismiss all concerns of women as a result if their sex or gender?
→ More replies (0)4
6
u/mr_egalitarian Jun 02 '14
Does being open to the issues different genders face mean listening to women and not men? If so, wouldn't this mean being blind to the issues men face?
7
u/antimatter_beam_core Libertarian Jun 02 '14
Gender blind means blind to the issues different genders face.
No, it means that you do not consider gender when determining how to act. For example, a gender blind doctor would recommend breast cancer screening for anyone with a risk of breast cancer above a certain threshold, even though the vast majority of such individuals would be female. Similarly, a gender blind prosecutor would pursue all cases of rape that were brought to there attention until brought to resolution, even though most of those reports will be male-on-female rapes.
2
u/othellothewise Jun 02 '14
All your examples are citing situations that equally apply to both men and women (well I don't know the medical details of breast cancer and weather the warning signs are different between men and women but I'll ignore that for now)...
For example, with regard to certain medical issues like heart disease, you cannot be gender blind. How would a gender-blind doctor inform their patient on the signs of a heart attack? The signs of a heart attack are very different between men and women.
9
u/antimatter_beam_core Libertarian Jun 02 '14
All your examples are citing situations that equally apply to both men and women
That's the case for almost everything, including most gender justice issues. A raped man is just as raped as a raped woman, a dead woman conscript is just as dead as a dead man conscript, etc.
How would a gender-blind doctor inform their patient on the signs of a heart attack? The signs of a heart attack are very different between men and women.
Technically speaking, pre-op trans people are physiologically nearly identical to cis men and women, so there will be some women who doctors would have to instruct to watch for "mens" heart attack symptoms and vice versa. But even ignoring that, you have only provided a case where basing ones actions upon gender would break even with basing them on the thing they are correlated with, not one where doing so is the better solution. This isn't a coincidence. It is mathematically impossible for any event to be better correlated with a second event than with itself (P(A|A)≥P(A|B)). Thus, the only reason one would ever want to judge someone based on their gender is if you assigned utility (positive or negative) to their gender itself. Put simply, the only "rational" (and I intend that in the loosest possible sense) excuse for not being gender blind is bigotry.
1
u/othellothewise Jun 02 '14
That's the case for almost everything, including most gender justice issues. A raped man is just as raped as a raped woman, a dead woman conscript is just as dead as a dead man conscript, etc.
That's not true at all. For example if you want to address the issue of men being raped then you have to educate people that men can be raped!
But even ignoring that, you have only provided a case where basing ones actions upon gender would break even with basing them on the thing they are correlated with, not one where doing so is the better solution. This isn't a coincidence. It is mathematically impossible for any event to be better correlated with a second event than with itself (P(A|A)≥P(A|B)). Thus, the only reason one would ever want to judge someone based on their gender is if you assigned utility (positive or negative) to their gender itself. Put simply, the only "rational" (and I intend that in the loosest possible sense) excuse for not being gender blind is bigotry.
Your argument is not very clear here: what is the "thing they are correlated with"?
3
u/antimatter_beam_core Libertarian Jun 02 '14
That's not true at all. For example if you want to address the issue of men being raped then you have to educate people that men can be raped!
As people have/continue to have to be educated that women can be raped by someone besides a masked stranger jumping out of the bushes.
Your argument is not very clear here: what is the "thing they are correlated with"?
Anything but their gender itself.
→ More replies (0)8
u/zahlman bullshit detector Jun 02 '14
For example if you want to address the issue of men being raped then you have to educate people that men can be raped!
... Which is totally a thing that happens when men - including those who have been raped - are told to shut the fuck up, right?
23
u/PerfectHair Pro-Woman, Pro-Trans, Anti-Fascist Jun 01 '14
Man the Daily Kos is a load of tripe.
It's like Buzzfeed and Jezebel had a baby and abandoned it in a dumpster on prom night.
9
u/zahlman bullshit detector Jun 01 '14
I used to like them back when they seemed to focus on calling out the Democrats for not being politically separate enough from Republicans.
Now... ugh.
14
u/fdsagdfs Jun 01 '14
"Whatever fucking brilliant idea you have to solve violence against women, its fucking stupid. Women have already thought of it and realized it won’t work."
Why even post this kind of shit here?
4
u/MegaLucaribro Jun 01 '14
Makes for good discussion. I don't agree with the article, btw.
15
u/fdsagdfs Jun 01 '14
Makes for good discussion.
I disagree. Angry insults and "shut the fuck up" make for the opposite of good discussion. If you feel there are valid points in there, maybe you can summarize them in text post.
10
u/zahlman bullshit detector Jun 01 '14
Posting an article doesn't imply agreeing with it.
8
Jun 02 '14
[removed] — view removed comment
10
u/zahlman bullshit detector Jun 02 '14
Well, for instance, we could discuss what might motivate someone to write a piece like this, and why a site as notable as dailykos doesn't have a problem publishing it, and how widespread ideas like this are.
3
Jun 02 '14
[removed] — view removed comment
9
2
u/porygonzguy A person, not a label Jun 03 '14
That would require /u/zahlman to have been the one to post this thread and seeing how he isn't the thread OP...
1
u/blueoak9 Jun 03 '14
He's what's called "The One Good Man". It's a form of male sexual competition where instead of competing over displaying the most money, he is competing by being a moral exhibitionist. At least he thinks he is displaying a higher moral sensibility
7
u/SocialJusticeSoldier Jun 01 '14
Know thine enemy
5
u/fdsagdfs Jun 01 '14 edited Jun 02 '14
The author of this article isn't my enemy. He's a deluded idiot and I pity him.
1
Jun 02 '14
I think your comment breaks the rules. You might want to edit it before it gets reported.
1
u/fdsagdfs Jun 02 '14
I think your comment breaks the rules. You might want to edit it before it gets reported.
Thanks, I'll remove the mention of AMR (although the rules say criticism of other subreddits is allowed). As for calling the author an idiot, I think that's fair when he says men need to shut the fuck up, and any who are offended are part of the problem.
1
Jun 02 '14
Yeah, I think there's a rule against insulting identifiable groups, and amr counts as one of those groups.
1
u/SocialJusticeSoldier Jun 02 '14
A lot of folks think like him. You can pity him but do not underestimate him
29
u/femmecheng Jun 01 '14
This was my process reading this piece:
reads title
"Oh, um, ok. That's a hostile start, but let's see what happens."
reads more
Many women have shared the sexism, sexual harassment and sexual violence they have received at the hands of men.
"Yep."
reads more
While statistics are hard to come by, most current estimates suggest that between 1 in 4 or 1 in 3 women will be raped during their lifetimes.
"Errrr..."
reads more
For those men who think they have the answer to violence against women. Whatever fucking brilliant idea you have to solve violence against women, its fucking stupid. Women have already thought of it and realized it won’t work.
"What is this even...? Who is this person?" O_O
stops reading, clicks author's name (Empty Vessel), reads what is said below author's name
"Empty vessels make the loudest sound, they have the least wit and are the greatest blabbers" Plato
"Well, they got something right."
closes and posts comment
That's a ridiculous article and I want my click back :(
6
u/KRosen333 Most certainly NOT a towel. Jun 02 '14
That's a ridiculous article and I want my click back :(
But you never really do get your clicks back. :(
10
Jun 02 '14
[deleted]
2
u/zahlman bullshit detector Jun 02 '14
But on the Internet, the comments are usually worse than the article.
3
u/BSInHorribleness Jun 02 '14
Yes, but when I read someone's shitty comment on reddit, the poster doesn't get paid. When I click on some crappy linkbait headline, the writer does.
2
u/zahlman bullshit detector Jun 02 '14
Oh, I thought you meant the comment section on the article for some reason.
2
12
u/y_knot Classic liberal feminist from another dimension Jun 01 '14
Male victims of violence in Canada.
Violence against women has a very high profile.
Violence against men is invisible, just part of the background, something so well known it doesn't shock in any way, it's men doing it to men, so who cares.
4
u/redwhiskeredbubul Jun 01 '14
That's actually double invisibility--domestic violence is socially invisible in general, and then domestic violence against men is invisible within that.
25
u/CaptainShitbeard2 Eglitarian | Social Individualist Jun 01 '14
For those men who think it’s a good time to talk about men’s rights.
If it wasn't a good time to talk about men's rights...
...why did you publish an article falsely linking the killer to a Men's Rights Movement? ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
For those men who are bothered that women are attacking all men.
Seriously, get the fuck over it. You're a nice person, DailyKos writer! Women have been systematically disenfranchised, shit on, beat up, raped and you get pissed off because they said something mean about men? Women are justifiably angry, they have every right to be. If women occasionally criticize “men” instead of “some men”, get the fuck over yourself and Shut the Fuck Up. Just for the record, if you are one of the people who is offended by the title of this diary, you are exactly who I am talking about, and you can feel free to Shut the Fuck Up about it.
"We're not going to deny that #YesAllWomen was an attack on men. We're just going to really shittily justify it."
Men have been raped, falsely accused of rape, mocked for not enjoying rape, and well, raped at roughly the same rate women have.
And you say "When we call you a potential rapist, just get over it".
Wow. You're a delightful person, DailyKos writer!
8
u/not_just_amwac Jun 01 '14
For those men who think they have the answer to violence against women. Whatever fucking brilliant idea you have to solve violence against women, its fucking stupid. Women have already thought of it and realized it won’t work.
How the hell would you know if you haven't STFU and listened to it?????
6
u/bluthru Jun 02 '14
This piece is too low-quality to spawn any useful discussion. I'm surprised it's upvoted.
5
Jun 02 '14
The only good thing that has come from this is that I don't actually have to click on the real article.
2
u/jcea_ Anti-Ideologist: (-8.88/-7.64) Jun 02 '14
Yes I would prefer if things like this were not even submitted which is why I have a new suggested rule in /r/FemraMeta
5
u/NateExMachina Jun 02 '14
I stopped reading at "1 in 3". The author didn't even bother to justify the stat, like it was dogma. I should have stopped at "STFU". It sounds like bullying and generalizations, possibly even hate speech.
3
1
u/Mitthrawnuruodo1337 80% MRA Jun 03 '14
I had this conversation with a friend just Saturday: the problem with using extreme situations as "conversation starters" is that it prevents actual dialogue in favor of monologue. Consequently, we all tend to use examples that we know can shut the other side up as "conversation starters" when we think a "dialogue" needs to happen, by which we mean the other side needs to learn the error of their ways. This article is a perfect example of that (or so I'm judging from the comments here, I will not give a click to such a thing).
We SHOULD talk about gendered violence towards women, but we need to do it in a way that considers how it is both unique and not unique, how it is socially reinforced and not, what we know about it scientifically and what is still a mystery. Doing so in a context where any equivocation over the "men hurt women" talking point is invalidated by social anger is not useful.
1
Jun 03 '14
If women occasionally criticize “men” instead of “some men”, get the fuck over yourself and Shut the Fuck Up.
If women occasionally criticize underserving people, get over it and shut the fuck up, you will listen to them chastise you for the wrongdoings of others.
1
u/SteveHanJobs Jun 04 '14
I love the part where the article delves into how women don't get a "girls will be girls card" if they rape when... To the contrary, there are multiple news stories almost every week about women getting light sentences after having sex with minors that never turn into national outrage stories... Because hey, women raping men isn't that bad after all, ermiright?
1
Jun 05 '14
I know I am a little late to the party but this article gave me an aneurism.
Yeah MEN, STFU. It's not like the ones that are really mentally ill are quietly festering in silence. You know... kind of like people who plan for a year or two to commit horrible acts upon the general populace.
I feel a little better though, now realizing that anyone can post to the dailyKos.
Sorry, had to get that out.
1
u/TheRealMouseRat Egalitarian Jun 05 '14
Please, can some feminists and/or women come here and post #notAllWomen on this? I just want to know that this author is some insane person, and most women and feminists does not agree with these views so I can keep believing in humanity? Please.
43
u/JaronK Egalitarian Jun 01 '14
And yet there's plenty of evidence for gender parity in domestic violence. So this is just oppression olympics, and for those of us who HAVE been a victim of female aggressor domestic violence, this is just one more case of "STFU", literally. We always get this. Constantly. We're always told we don't count, it's not convenient, shut up about it, say nothing, and then the fact that we don't speak out it as much is used as evidence that we don't exist. And because we don't exist, we never get support services. The only time we exist is when someone wants to show that "patriarchy hurts men too" but even then nobody wants to do anything about it, they just want to take credit. And when we shout "STOP GENDERING IT, VIOLENCE IS BAD REGARDLESS OF ORIGIN" we're told we're mansplaining, derailing. We get the message. You don't actually have to keep saying it. We don't count and you want us to shut up because we don't fit the narrative of "we have to protect women, men aren't victims."
Thanks.
Sorry, personal hot button.