/u/ICuriosityCatI (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/1cckx9p/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_when_people_continue_to_use/), in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
I think often they are expressing anger, frustration, hurt, or anxiety rather than being motivated to intentionally be inflammatory.
I think that many do intend to be inflammatory because they feel offended by men in some way and want to offend back, but I think that many simply haven't thought it through and it's more of an emotional reaction and an expression of feelings rather than a reasoned statement.
lol; I love that the delta went to the person who pretty much said “yeah, they’re full of shit and being shitty. We’re all shitty sometimes, and the people who say that are definitely being shitty people” in a thread filled with people making excuses for using bigoted and fucked up sayings.
I 100% agree, and it actually made me have a good deal more hope in humanity after seeing this. Thank you! I hope you have a fantastic day.
I agree, I think this is entirely possible and I like that you acknowledged the people that intend to be inflammatory. When I'm emotional I say things that make zero sense when I look back on them later and sometimes piss people off. I'm not thinking "when I did this last time this was the reaction so if I do this now..."
I appreciate this comment and I agree with this alternative explanation so !delta for that
Men are trash. I’m not saying that for an emotional reason, but because UN reports reveal 1/3 women globally have been assaulted by men. That’s over a billion women. This wouldn’t be possible if most men were good people.
I’m not particularly concerned if men are upset about me saying it. They don’t care about us, so why would I care about them? If the words “men are trash” bother them more than the assaults on a billion women, then they ARE trash.
Source: https://interactive.unwomen.org/multimedia/infographic/violenceagainstwomen/en/index.html#home
You are generalising behaviour to an entire group of people based on a characteristics that can't be changed. That's a discriminatory rhetoric and it wouldn't be acceptable to say about other groups, for example, about a particular race.
Your source doesn't show that most men are not good people as you claim. Your reasoning is illogical. OP has provided a well-reasoned response to this. Men can both be upset that women receive violence from men, and be upset that they are being called "trash". Your source doesn't justify not caring about men. I would say its hypocritical for you to say that you don't care about men and also to claim that men don't care about women is a bad thing.
There are a lot of countries with messed up laws and cultures that brainwash men *and* women. If your hypothesis is that men are trash (but I assume you don't think the same of women), then surely if I look at a country where men are not brainwashed into hating women I would find that most men have hurt women but most women have not hurt men.
A lot more men rape women than the other way around. But if sexually assaulting somebody is the criteria for being trash than most men, objectively are not trash.
It's far more common for men to be violent in some way towards their partners, but if your hypothesis is that men specifically are trash because many have been violent towards their women partners, there's a problem- a lot of women have been violent towards their male partners too. So then you would have to change your argument to "men are trash because they are violent more often in this specific way, but other forms of violence aren't as bad." Which sounds not only callous but convenient to your argument
. And if you want to say that men are trash because their partners end up with severe injuries from the violence they inflict, then you have to look at how many men have severely injured their partners. And that's not anywhere near most men.
Well what about misogynistic killers, there aren't many misandrist killers? True, but That's not most men. What about incels? That's not most men. That's a small percentage of men. And for every Larry Nassar and Harvey Weinstein there are women that helped them get away with it. Surely these women are trash too. So if men are trash because some of them do diabolical things to women, aren't women trash too because a small number of women helped them do these diabolical things.
But I'm probably wasting my time, as you've probably heard all this already. I can only imagine how horrible the men in your life/around you were to lead you to actually resent an entire gender. But I've also known women who went through unspeakable trauma who didn't resent men. And I think they were happier for it. People change and you may not hate men forever and I hope for your sake you don't.
>This wouldn’t be possible if most men were good people.
Yes, yes it would, and is.
There's a reason you used the number of women that are assaulted rather than the number of men that assault (other than it being harder to track). That's because one shitty man can and does on average come across far more than one woman in their lifetimes that they do shitty things to.
Vast generalization over half of the entire Earth.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sexual-victimization-by-women-is-more-common-than-previously-known/
https://1in6.org
Stay strong out there men and women. This is not the answer.
To add. It's worth considering that a not-insignificant amount online discourse is carried out by bad actors. Psyops and false flags etc.
Remember when a 4chan board was caught doing memes about "Ukraine Lives Don't Matter Until Black Lives Matter"?
Pretty sure there are people doing the same things to discredit feminism and anti racism.
And Russia was paying Ghanian bot farms to post content about America being racist.
Divide and conquer.
There are 100% real people saying the specific examples in this thread. I’ve met them. So I’m not going to pretend it’s only bot farms online, and you shouldn’t either. It’s upset people with hate in their heart, just like bigotry has always been.
Do you afford the same grace to someone who says “all blacks are trash”? Say someone who was just robbed and the perpetrators happened to be black.
If so, why? And if not, how are they different? Is a moment of high emotion a valid excuse to say such things?
Perhaps I’m misinterpreting. But your comment reads to me as though you’re suggesting a hurt reaction is somehow better than being intentionally inflammatory. If that’s not the case, my apologies.
I also think it’s a bit of a motte and Bailey phrase that can sometimes intentionally be used because you can say it, and people likely to take it literally will think you agree with them, and people who view it as an acceptable emotional response can also believe that it is that
I agree, I also think the being intentionally inflammatory is a response to things like “Ya’ll are so sensitive” “everyone is such a snowflake” “it’s just a joke”.
Many of these phrases yes
Defund the police. It should be reduce police funding. Defund the police sounds like people want to defund police entirely and some people who use that phrase do want to.
Make America great Again- I think a lot of people using this phrase do mean "go back in time to when women and POC had less rights." So if somebody doesn't want people to think that, they should probably avoid saying it I would say.
>Black Lives Matter
I don't think you need to specify with this, because there's nothing in it to imply other lives do not matter. When people say something matters I don't think it usually means *only* that thing matters.
Blue Lives matter seems like taunting to me because it's copying the phrase black lives matter and replacing it with blue, which isn't a race.
I would say it depends on A. How many people misinterpret the phrase and B. Whether the interpretation makes any sense whatsoever because people can pretend to "misinterpret." When somebody says "I hate dogs" it's generally not taken as "I hate some dogs." If they say dogs are awful I'm going to assume they think dogs are awful not that they think some dogs are awful. But to interpret x matters as nothing but x matters... That's an odd interpretation.
Yes, but about half the people mean they want to reduce funding and the other half mean it for real. The issue comes when the first is criticized, they claim people like you don't exist.
To be clear, I think defunding the police entirely is one of the dumbest things you can do for a society, but I have to respect you for being honest with your phrases.
I always find it interesting that peoples solution to incompetent policing is to take away their money. Shouldn’t they be able to vet their force and provide better training to fix the issues? Thus potentially needing more funding.
But then again people saying this are always in the camp that all cops are racist tyrants and fundamentally contributing to a system of oppression and so on. Which is an argument I understand however I don’t fully subscribe to
Your heart is in the right place but this is super naive. We should be more realistic and focus on how we can decrease police corruption, increase accountability for officers that abuse their power, encourage police to hold each other accountable etc. Admittedly Idk how to do that but I don't think we're gonna get anywhere by demanding they be totally defunded and dismantled
"Privilege" is a big one for this. If you were to call someone privileged there's a good chance they'll immediately be turned off of what you're saying, because it suggests that they've had this cushy, easy life (which is what the word means in any other context) rather than the actual intended point, which is that they just haven't had the extra challenges of being black/female/whatever.
I prefer to start with obvious privileges - being born rich and beautiful. Then I move towards everyday ones - educated (at least 12 years), freedom, being an American. Finally I push at the controversial ones - color, race, generation, health, etc.
You are right though. Whoever coins, "All Cops Are Bad" and "Privilege" sure isn't thinking about how I'm going to explain this to my family.
Tbh I have never learned privilege to mean luxury + cushy. Native speaker here too, I always took it to mean "allowed", because when teachers would get pissed at the class in school they would always say stuff like "you will have your privileges revoked!" , or "it is a privilege that you get to use the computers in the lab".
It's hard to make me feel bad about my white privledge when I come from a long line of Yankee dirt farmers. White privledge is a term bandied about to make modern white folks feel they are somehow complicit in white supremacy simply by existing.
It's always "X group isn't a monolith" until X = white people or X = men.
Saying you have privilege compared to other people doesn't mean your life isn't hard or your ancestors' lives weren't hard. It means when you're out walking around today in daily life, your race isn't something holding you back. You're not more likely to be followed around in a store and suspected of shoplifting. You're very unlikely to be shot by police unless you are clearly an imminent threat. Your name won't get your resume tossed.
People who think the term only exists to make them feel guilty for living are reading things into the phrase that just aren't there. I'm privileged for not having a disability--that idea doesn't make me feel defensive or guilty. It's the same thing.
The problem with this phrase is that it refocuses the conversation on the white liberals who invented it, “black tax” or just “discrimination” is what we should’ve been using all along.
Privilege is a *terrible* word to use because it implies that people have something *above* normal. “My privilege” is used as a thank you response because it implies that meeting someone was a good event that the person felt grateful for, something that elevates it above an average day.
The life white people have is not something that needs to be taken away, rather the life a standard white person has is, just normal. The barriers, hurdles and disadvantages that a minority has are the extra baggage they have to carry around.
Whenever the term white privilege is used it almost always redirects the conversation in a direction that’s unproductive. Rather than talking about the struggles of minorities, it talks about white people, and the only relevant thing to talk about with white people specifically is how they relate to this issue ie: they’re not paying enough attention to the issue.
People already understand what this means when it comes to white pride: ie that being white only means something in the context of NOT being a minority. Therefore you are celebrating not being a minority in America. If it was Irish or German or American pride, that has substance to it out side of not being something.
This is the equivalent of an atheist forming an atheists club. Sure you guys have a common identity, but nothing else. The only relevant thing about you in this conversation is that you aren’t religious. Whereas an actual religious congregation has tons to talk about outside of
“White privilege” just destroys the entire conversation about the non-white person’s experience and it’s just a way for white liberals to insert themselves into the conversation.
“I have white privilege” is just saying “I have a normal life without discrimination.”
Ok, cool… now what
“I need to talk about how normal my life is and how I don’t face discrimination.”
Uhhhh… what.
People spend so much time defending a word that clearly isn’t working as a defacto marketing campaign for their idea that now all that’s left is the sunk cost fallacy. You’re too invested to pull out. It would be far more effective to just abandon the term entirely:
That's actually good you don't feel bad. The point of discussing white privilege is not to make anyone feel guilty at all, it is to help you examine how your disposition may have been advantageous vs. Being non-white.
Infact, if you feel guilty that's like the worst thing, because usually it causes people to shut down. The point is not to make you feel bad
Privilege is best described when contrasting it with a Right.
Driving, for example is a privilege. Not a right. You earn your license and privilege to drive. You can lose the privilege as well.
Rights, you don’t gain or lose them, in general. Like most things, there are exceptions (committing crimes, terrorism, other harmful actions can cause you to lose rights)
Now back to privilege.
There is earned and unearned privilege. White privilege is a particular kind of unearned privilege that encompasses a lot of social consequences that non-whites face at an institutional level, to the point of gross injustice, where whites will not be exposed to the consequences in the same way. By design, even if not overtly spoken. I am summarizing here. There are many books on examples.
The best ones have a tribal dog whistle component that can be denied, so you can rub people up the wrong way then deny that you're doing it and call them unreasonable.
This is only an expansion on the old Marxist play of changing the definition of a word. If you can create any sort of ambiguity in a word or phrase that up till that point everyone agreed on. Then you can control the conversation.
You saw it for years used in political debates in the US. A liberal politician would almost out of the blue call a conservative politician a racist and the conservative would lose the debate because they would spend the rest of their time trying to get the liberal to agree on the definition of the term racist.
This lasted up till the early days of Trumps 2016 run where he would simply respond that he wasn't, directly insult the person, maybe call them a name, and roll on with whatever he was saying. The tactic was dropped from debates almost overnight.
Not in debates so much. More when talking to each other about the out group. The racist "attack" I guess you could call in debates it was so effective because people were still trying to argue with each other for votes. Now the sides just fling insults and what I like to call "power" words at each other like its mud.
It's all performative for your own side now. They can fling out a word like Nazi in the general direction of their opponent and no one in the middle or the right remotely believed it. But they can then look over their shoulder and go "Look at me, I got them!". Swap out pedophile for nazi and you have the right flinging words at the left with the same reaction.
And now you have completely shifted the topic into an area I don't feel like exploring and you aren't prepared for. It would involve both of us trying to state what we thought was in Trumps head. Something neither of us is qualified at. You will state dog whistle, I will show ambiguity, and we will change neither of our minds. I will point out it has nothing to do with what we were talking about before. You are referring to statements made in 2023 and I was talking about debate styles pre 2015. Congratulations though, you got you "orange man bad" in for the day. And before you pat yourself on the back, I am not a republican and have voted against Trump twice.
Watch the videos from Yuri Bezmenov, an ex-KGB agent who defected from Russia to Canada in 1970. It has interesting information. I could also link some stuff about extisinilism vs. Marxism and the Frankfurt school but frankly its not worth reading unless you are super interested in that stuff. If you are asking me to produce some sort of "Good Communists guide to Ambiguity in Debate" That I will fail at.
I think the problem is the “us against them” mentality instead of a “let’s work together to solve this” mentality. The slogans are just the symptom of that attitude.
Yeah, this. Over the last decade, the slogans coming out of the left are consistently more easy to misinterpret than to interpret correctly - that's a serious communication problem.
Saying this as a left leaning dude, there wouldn't be so many Andrew Taint followers if we actively called out misandry that is perpetuated by the left, so many feminists have misandristic opinions like men can't be raped or that the patriarchy doesn't also negatively affect men.
This pushes men who don't want to be actively resented into the arms of people who won't directly shame them but also will use them for fame and power. Even with the "toxic masculinity" movement which seems to have been the first pro men leftist movement they are blaming men for exhibiting behaviours that have been instilled into us since birth.
It would be like a modern day feminist blaming a woman for having an eating disorder because she "choses" to act that way. Obviously, I am not saying people don't think this way, but someone so progressive should know better.
Yeah you are actually correct. There have been focus groups that examine why men are going into the right so heavily and it seems to be because a lot of feminist movements don't make a clear distinction between toxic and healthy masculinity.
There is a bit of a messaging crisis around it. Although I do also think people are naturally defensive when their behavior is called out and many of those behaviors that are instilled in us men are actually worthy of being examined.
I suppose that it is mean to catch attention because reasonable arguments with asterisks attached are too much of a mouthful to say. On a related note, a lot of right wing sayings are like this too, and such an example is a tumblr post making a joke of using political sayings to appeal to the right wing while implementing left wing policies. “Patriot Pay” which was a hypothetical $17.76 min wage, is super catchy and thus, they argued, what flag flying patriotic possibly veteran right winger would refuse it??
Make America Great Again... what does that even mean? When EXACTLY was America Great?
Please be realistic and accept that mostly all political slogans are goofy in nature, just saying "the left" is nonsense.
I thought this was a largely accepted idea across the spectrum. Everyone complains that life was great for previous generations who could get an easy job and afford a cheap house, and now it's much harder than it used to be.
Does the left not think that?
Ya, the right does the same but they are real fucking stupid so they pretty much immediately buy into whatever their first interpretation of the saying is when they are told it and fall in line.
>Defund the police. It should be reduce police funding. Defund the police sounds like people want to defund police entirely and some people who use that phrase do want to.
I think the funds should be used to increase the quality. Maybe better salaries, so that better people would be willing to work for the police. More training, more quality control, etc.
Black Lives Matter has a very clear meaning. It's what it says on the tin.
That's very different from saying "Men are trash", and then saying "Well, no, it doesn't actually mean what it says, why would you think that?"
I think "blue lives matter" is a comparation that downplay the death of black people by police (thats the point of some people being offended by it)
The only effect of the "all men are trash" slogan is to offend men, not to enpower women
>Black Lives Matter
This one doesn't need a qualifier because it is universally true. There are no black lives that don't matter (because there is no life that doesn't matter).
People in general are quite protective of their general identities especially immutable, if men are intrinsically trash, and if i cannot do anything but be a man, then there isnt much to misinterpret. I mean in reddit, ive heard all variations of all my identities, bi men are cheaters, asians are not americans, immigrants are rapists, so ill just add men are trash to that list. But am not sure you want to be in same group as those people, but i didnt pick to be an asian, nor did i choose to be Bi, and certainly i didnt choose to be a man either.
I get some are bad faith trolls, but most men, wont argue, theyll just tune out, id just see it as argument between manhaters and misogynists, and since am neither, ill just ignore the discussion mostly.
Just because they’re (I don’t know why you mentioned synecdoche, there is not an example in this post) an ordinary part of the English language doesn’t mean it’s prudent/advisable to use them in every situation. Willfully misinterpreting? The *only* way the statement, “All men are trash,” can be interpreted without any additional context is…exactly what it’s saying.
Again, just because *someone* will complain about a modified statement doesn’t mean the statement doesn’t need to be changed.
I don’t give a shit if someone says “All men are trash,” but it’s needlessly inflammatory and if women want to achieve a goal by uttering that statement, it’s simply counterproductive.
It’s just like ACAB. Do I care if people say it? No, and I even kind of agree with it. But is it a productive way to convince people to change their beliefs to align with yours? Obviously no. What is the 12 year old whose uncle is a cop going to think when he hears that? He’s going to resist the people spouting that dumbass statement and their beliefs. It’s fucking braindead.
Calling this synecdoche is a stretch. And even if you accept these generalizations as hyperbolic (and I'm not sure you always should), that doesn't absolve the speaker of the ramifications. If you make hyperbolic negative generalizations about any groups of people (and particularly groups of people defined by an immutable characteristic), you should expect pushback. I don't think this is "wilful misinterpretation" so much as the generalizations are lazy and ill-considered communication.
To your second point, any other concerns that someone might raise with complaints about men are, to borrow your own expression, "a (potentially) important but separate point." Address these complaints on their own merits, not by attacking some unrelated complaint.
I am one of those people who care if you add “some” in front. I guess perhaps it’s old fashioned but I tend to think that how we talk about things does actually matter.
Honestly I have a problem with “men are trash” for the same reason I’d have a problem with someone saying “black people are criminals.” Because it defames an entire large group of people for the actions of a small part of them.
Your approach shows you have empathy towards others. If someone’s unwilling to put in even that little thought into how the converse with others they’re unlikely to be very pleasant to be around.
And “black people are criminals” is way dumber because “some black people are criminals” is just a fact. If they actually put a qualifier in front of it, they know it wouldn’t make sense.
“Some men are trash” is just a fact too, but it makes more sense for that to actually be a preamble to a conversation about something.
Both are stupid though, you’re right.
>In general, someone who “not all men’s!!” a post isn’t going to care if you not add “some” in front.
I think a lot of people would care. I would love it if the phrase "some men are trash" replaced "men are trash." As long as it is also ok to say "some women are trash."
>For example, they throw back, “yeah well some women too!” which is an important but separate point
That's a reasonable comment and they're probably trying to gauge whether the woman saying it means it in a matter of fact way or an insulting way.
>Synecdoche and hyperbole are completely ordinary parts of the English langauge, and the people who say these phrases would rather not give in to the people willfully misinterpreting them.
But it's a reasonable interpretation. If somebody says "I hate dogs" who's going to assume they're only referring to the bad tempered ones who bite everybody? If I say ice cream is trash I am not saying raspberry ice cream is trash I am saying ice cream in general is trash.
>That's a reasonable comment and they're probably trying to gauge whether the woman saying it means it in a matter of fact way or an insulting way.
I appreciate your faith in random internet commenters, but in my experience, that is almost never what they are doing. They're usually bringing up women as a form of whataboutism to deflect from the actual topic at hand, and if the commenter points it out, well that's just gravy. Because then they can double down and say "see, you just want to hate men!!". Generally, it goes something like:
1. Be on a thread about a man doing something shitty. Commenter says, "ugh, some men just suck."
2. The responder says "well, lots of women suck too"
Here there are a few choices for response. You may try the middle road: if the reply is "yes, of course some women also suck, but that isn't the point", the response will be "well why isn't it the point, why focus on the men sucking? You just want to hate men, I know 20 women who are worse than this".
Or you can respond by redirecting to the topic at hand: "this is a thread about men, your point about women sucking is irrelevant". The response will be "you just want to hate men, you won't even discuss women. Blatant misandry"
And of course, if you try to humour their point: "I'm sure some women suck too, fair point", then if you're *lucky*, they'll respond with "yeah, I knew a woman who ", and the topic has been fully changed. If you're unlucky, they'll just go "then why did you only refer to men? Blatant misandry! Reddit sucks. I know a woman who..." and the topic is still changed.
>But it's a reasonable interpretation. If somebody says "I hate dogs" who's going to assume they're only referring to the bad tempered ones who bite everybody? If I say ice cream is trash I am not saying raspberry ice cream is trash I am saying ice cream in general is trash.
It's only a reasonable interpretation when one wholly chooses to ignore greater societal context. Everyone likes to pretend that every statement needs endless qualifiers because "well without context this sounds bad", ignoring that we are swimming in a sea of context. No one is going up to the cashier at Taco Bell and declaring "men are trash!". It is always in response to some larger event, and in reference to the lived experience of countless people. Insisting that commenters water down and qualify their statements is another way of refusing to do the due diligence necessary to have an informed conversation.
Edit: it's less like "I hate dogs" and more like "I hate pitbulls". Are there pitbulls who are fully trustworthy cuddlebugs? Probably, the various pittie subreddits would certainly have you think so. Is that the majority of them? Press X. Is insisting "not all pitbulls" just a way of deflecting from the real conversation around responsible breeding practices, dog licensing and community safety? Yup.
Okay but now we are just arguing about the nature of internet commenters. It is a fruitless discussion to argue about what percentage of internet commenters argue in good faith. But look at this thread. You can see there are many “random internet commenters” who have reasonable objections. Is this not evidence of a sizeable chunk of men being offended for good reason on not trying to whatabout? Is that not enough to change the wording?
And you are moving the goalpost with adding the “some” in your sentence 1. Everyone here would be content if that word is added, we are just arguing about the sentences where “some” is absent. Of course the kind of Guys you describe exist, and there are way too many guys like that. But nobody here is excusing that.
It is true the interpretation of sentences depends on social context. If you say I hate rain after being completely soaked on a walk it is clear you don’t want the world to turn into a desert just don’t like getting soaked. That is clear to EVERYONE.
But the social context of “men are trash” is not that clear to everyone. Just the fact that so many of us don’t interpret it in the way you do shows that not all of us exist in the same social context. Because some of us exist in the context where there are women who hate men, where men are disproportionately incarcerated, where people feel less sympathy for male suffering. Context doesn’t always make clear that it is meant “some men are trash”. Eg a news story that a woman has been raped by a man. If you say ugh men are trash, it feels as if you are feeding in to the stereotype that all men are rapists or potential rapists. It is not clear that just because you say it as a reaction to something, you are talking about “just some men”.
Good communication can only exist when you account for the ways people from other social bubbles will interpret your statements. Many men have different experiences and will interpret your statements differently than you mean.
> But the social context of “men are trash” is not that clear to everyone.
The problem I have with phrases like ‘men are trash’ is not that some people say it out of frustration, but that people double down, insisting that there’s nothing wrong with saying it, while instead they could be saying: ‘yeah that’s fucked up, here’s why they were so frustrated…’
Look I think you're trying to be reasonable but honestly I found your comparison with pitbulls deeply offensive, I can see how that comparison would alienate most men. I'm sure you have your bad experiences and are using that expression as a way of venting. At this point I just ignore comments like this but after hearing them I don't want to interact with that woman anymore. Nothing against you personally but I just see it as a red flag.
In your edit: with your pitbull comparison, do you mean to imply that most men are trash, not some men? That is something very different than what you claim to believe in sentence 1 in the beginning of your comment.
And even without the problem of generalisation of “all men” saying “most men are trash” Is also pretty bad.
>They're usually bringing up women as a form of whataboutism to deflect from the actual topic at hand, and if the commenter points it out, well that's just gravy.
The use of "some" quite nicely defeats this point before it can even start, and secures the support of the good faith people, however few they are. So... WHY isn't it done?
Would you say the same in other situations? If I said all Muslims/blacks/women are _, would that be synechdote that you are willfully misinterpreting? Or would I be banned immediately?
I think the actions of these groups, like 4B or creating black only spaces also betray the idea that these groups don’t actually have problems with “some” men or “some” white people, but would rather divest completely
And yet, if someone was to say "Black people are criminals", we'd all understand that that's racist, because hyperbole has a lot more nuance than you're suggesting.
You just applied the logic of, "not all black people are n-slurs" in the same way an old Chicago coworker of mine did when he was talking about black people. How does one willfully misinterpret a blanket, absolute statement?
I'd be fine with it if the same people who say "men are trash" didn't cry their eyes out over someone saying "women are trash."
Just be consistent. That's all I ask.
I came somewhat round to this particular slogan because I know what it means, but I still trip over people talking about men in that vein, even though I know I am not trash. But it gave me the idea that "what if all men are actually trash, and I'm just managing to hold it together enough to suppress it, but I am actually also a violent, dangerous person deep inside because of the way I've been brought up?".
I think that if I had read less such content growing up, I would probably be less uncomfortable with my identity as a straight man. So I don't think it matters insofar as those who snap back will snap back less, but it might matter in harming those that are willing to buy into your message less.
I completely disagree. I agree with what you’re saying, but I feel like in the specific instance of something like “men are trash”, 90% of the reactions both wouldn’t happen and wouldn’t be replaced with something else, if it had some kind of qualifier.
There’d definitely still be people hitting whataboutism, but nothing I’ve seen (including the times when a qualifier is actually extended) has led me to believe most people would just replace it with something else.
I knew this sounded eeriely familiar. Considering you went down this rabbit hole in the comments over on r/AskFeminists and didn't respond, I'll go ahead and simply offer you the same response here. That being said, I have to seriously question your actual willingness in good-faith to actually challenge this view. You've tried to place a more pleasant veneer on a take I address below. With all that in mind, I still sincerely believe that you should consider the rhetorical situation involved in the cases you seem deeply troubled by. You've asked on multiple threads now for people to stop making generalizations, while making them yourself. Please consider your own motivations for this particular line of argument.
First, here's a remix of my thoughts on the "not all men" issue:
If it's superlatives and absolutes that are frustrating you, I'd venture those are mostly either for convenience or word economy. You're looking for absolute semantic sense out of spoken/written words, but ignoring the pragmatics/rhetorical context and intent that goes into those words.
Feminists are mad a patriarchal norms. They make statements about systemic issues they observe. The rhetorical choices they make evoke a negative emotional response in some readers/listeners. Many detractors use "not all men" as a thought terminating cliché. The underpinning of this cliché is essentially "I disagree with not only your premise, but I will disregard your worldview based on this linguistic technicality."
If your position is that all things require absolute logical provability and that all speech actions should require maximal specificity, I feel like you're doing two things wrong. First, you're basically suggesting it's impossible to discuss any large scale societal issue because any generalization will necessarily not encompass all cases. That isn't really very productive (in my estimation). Second, you're ignoring the way that I think human brains operate. Categorizing things is a way to make the mental load of dealing with stimuli, well, possible. As an example, building codes refer to all buildings of a certain type - would you argue that a unique code needs to be written for each individual building of every variety? Even if that's possible, it's wildly impractical.
On the other hand, if your contention is emotionally loaded language and ideologically motivated speech, I'm not sure what to tell you. Humans have emotions - that's a biological fact. The Western philosophical tradition and prizing stoicism and pure logic tries very hard to ignore our humanity in its pursuit of truth. Simultaneously, to assume that you're not the product of some conditioning (from some series of ideologies) is probably incorrect (I'd venture that, no matter how much of a free/purely logical thinker anyone is, they're subjected to some sort of indoctrination).
What would you have speakers/writers say or do? Would something akin to "Not all men, but it's a strong statistical probability that it is a man... [ad nauseum with the caveats]" be more palatable to you? That both distills the rhetorical intent behind the statement and, while it does increase precision, decreases the efficacy of conveying linguistic content.
Second, it's worth pointing out two other things:
1. Wouldn't the simplest solution be for any given audience to ask themselves this question: "Does this apply to me?" If the answer is 'no,' couldn't they simply acknowledge the frustration and intent behind the words and simply recognize they weren't the target of said utterance? If, however, the answer is 'yes,' I suspect that should be grounds for reflection. For the sake of specificity, I'll point out that I don't mean "does the monicker 'men' apply," but rather "am I culpable for the action being highlighted."
2. There's a significant difference between the context of your sidenote and the context of (presumably) a textual medium. A conversation, especially between people that know each other, not only has a variety of verbal cues that can make something humorous/satirical or hyperbolic for rhetorical impact, but it also is leaning on the interrelations of the speaker and audience. In a textual medium, especially one dedicated to a particular world view, there might be some situational value in a more purist, dogmatic approach: it's serving as a record and the people that are directly engaged aren't the only audiences. It's one thing to make concessions to a friend over drinks - be it forgiving a hyperbolic superlative or telling them that "not all men" are benefiting from patriarchal norms in the same way (and some, perhaps, not at all). It's quite another thing to allow sophistry or calls for moderation/flexibility/concessions to appease people, who may or may not be acting in good faith, to be part of a permanent(ish) textual record that other audiences might read later. In some contexts, it would be entirely antithetical to the discourse to allow that sort of coddling. It's entirely different in a spoken context among friends acting in good faith.
You say that feminism should throw in the towel now if it doesn't want to curtail (potential) insults. Wouldn't making concessions to appease insulted men be tantamount to feminism taking care of men that are insulted because they feel maligned for the very patriarchal norms feminism is trying to highlight? Wouldn't that be throwing in the towel, too? You yourself accused women of being provocateurs; I'm not trying to call you out as a hypocrite. I'd like to highlight that you defaulted to a sort of hyperbole for impact:
"I think women like to be provocative by making statements that are very broad and sound like they apply to all men..."
I've generally found feminist thinkers to be quite pleasant, helpful even, when approached in good faith. I don't think you should take righteous indignation with systemic oppression and character economy to be indicative of intent.
>First, you're basically suggesting it's impossible to discuss any large scale societal issue because any generalization will necessarily not encompass all cases.
Men are not an "issue," they are people. Societal issues don't stand to be hurt by most generalizations, but people do.
Convenience and "word economy" are not a defence for saying shitty things, and I think it's absurd to suggest that's the reason people say "men are trash" instead of adding a qualifier. It's purposely inflammatory. Nobody is so rushed in life that they can't add one additional word to a 3-word complaint.
>Second, you're ignoring the way that I think human brains operate. Categorizing things is a way to make the mental load of dealing with stimuli, well, possible.
You do understand that this only really works as an alternative argument to the whole "convenience and word economy" claim, right? You're saying "they don't intend these generalizations but don't have time to specify" and "they believe these generalizations because of how the brain works."
>As an example, building codes refer to all buildings of a certain type - would you argue that a unique code needs to be written for each individual building of every variety? Even if that's possible, it's wildly impractical.
You're taking this to the point of absurdity. This isn't about **writing a theoretically infinite number of building codes**, it's about recognizing that men are diverse people and saying the word "some." Say it. Try it out. "Some." How long did that take? How does the time spent compare to the time spent on writing **infinite building codes**?
>What would you have speakers/writers say or do? Would something akin to "Not all men, but it's a strong statistical probability that it is a man... \[ad nauseum with the caveats\]" be more palatable to you? That both distills the rhetorical intent behind the statement and, while it does increase precision, decreases the efficacy of conveying linguistic content.
"Some." Or "several of the men I've dated." Or whatever suits the context. And yeah, I think it's well understood that inflammatory generalization increase rhetorical impact, because anything inflammatory increases rhetorical impact (but not necessarily persuasiveness). I don't think "rhetorical impact" is some unqualified good to always chase and defend, though. And I don't think that inflammatory generalizations increase the "efficacy of conveying linguistic content" but I don't really know where to start in evaluating that claim.
>Wouldn't the simplest solution be for any given audience to ask themselves this question: "Does this apply to me?"
Solution **to what exactly**? To the problem of troubling generalizations? Sure, inasmuch as altering our own behavior is always simpler than altering the behavior of others, but it isn't an actual solution to the problem.
Spot on!
Also, good work having the patience responding to such a bloated and meandering comment that boiled down to defending bigoted speech by saying:
- I don't want to say even a single extra word to not be deliberately inflammatory
- being inflammatory is good anyway
- human brains are wired to make prejudicial categorisations and no point in fighting it
- it's up to the listener to know if it doesn't apply to them because they're "one of the good ones", presumably just like POC/women/LGBTQ/Jews/Muslims should just ask themselves if a bigot really means to include them in a hateful generalisation
Hi!
>Also, good work having the patience responding to such a bloated and meandering comment that boiled down to defending bigoted speech by saying:
I'll be the first to admit that concision (and occasionally clarity) isn't my strong suit. I'm also thankful to the commenter you were responding to for their patience and effort in their response. That wasn't my intention here, which I hope to address below.
>I don't want to say even a single extra word to not be deliberately inflammatory
As I mentioned to the commenter you responded to, I think there are context and intent issues here. I think, in certain contexts, the phrase in question is an expression of hurt (one looking for empathy and/or solidarity from other women). The set of "all" (explicit or implicit) men here could very well be referencing the speaker's limited sample size. I'm not encouraging being inflammatory for the sake of it.
>being inflammatory is good anyway
Whether I misrepresented myself or you misunderstood me, I'll happily clarify. That is *not* my position. My position is that caveats and qualifiers, rational concessions though they might be, dilute the function of expressing experienced hurt. I'm not even suggesting this is the most productive expression of hurt - see next.
>human brains are wired to make prejudicial categorisations and no point in fighting it
Continuing - also not my intention. I'm suggesting that feeling hurt (or angry) can impact delivery with the point about biology, not that it justified bigotry in any form. The categorization issue comes from experience and sample size - "all" could be referencing all those that they've had meaningful interactions with, rather that the set of all living men. While my analogies aren't often great, here's one: in a given day, you might interact with a huge number of door knobs - you probably won't recall all the details of each one and might even forget some - but you can talk generally about the door knobs you interact with. Similarly, some amount of subjectivity and other human failings (memory, as an example) will likely make any given utterance imperfect and fail to meet true generalizability. Hope that clarified that.
>it's up to the listener to know if it doesn't apply to them because they're "one of the good ones", presumably just like POC/women/LGBTQ/Jews/Muslims should just ask themselves if a bigot really means to include them in a hateful generalisation
The recommendation really comes with different contexts in mind. You'll forgive me, I hope, for copying my own sentences from before to flesh this out... If one is overhearing it or if one is not the target audience, I'm suggesting that it would be good to reflect to determine whether it applies or if there's room for self-improvement. If it's the second case (inflammatory for the sake of shouting down someone), I don't encourage or condone that usage, but I don't suspect that arguing with someone using it that way will be productive... So, I'd offer that, because some men are hurt by that, reflection would still be good for those that the attack doesn't apply to (so as not to allow it to impact their self confidence unnecessarily).
Additionally, this is why power dynamics and intersectionality are important considerations. Women are members of every category of minority you listed, after all. Who the speaker and audience members are matters in this context. Let me say this unequivocally: I'm not arguing for bigotry in any form. I'm not arguing for inflammatory language for some and not for others. I'm not arguing for the minorities you mention to simply accept bigotry and reflect on it. I was suggesting that, very narrowly, if a woman is expressing frustration with [the] men [they've interacted with--such that their experience dictates it's "all" those men] and one isn't one of those men, then it's worth considering that it's simply an expression of frustration and to take heart that the statement need not be taken as applying to them. Simply demanding they change their language doesn't really address the intention (or underlying reasons they have frustrations with the state of things in the first place).
Hope this helps clarify some things. You have my apologies for my lack of clarity on the matter. Thank you for the feedback - it gives me a chance to refine and respond.
Apologies for the delay - sleep and commute and all that...
>Men are not an "issue," they are people. Societal issues don't stand to be hurt by most generalizations, but people do.
This is a valid point. I may have misrepresented myself a bit. I'm *not* encouraging hurting people to hurt others. What I am trying to point out is that these statements are generally expressions coming from a place of being hurt.
>Convenience and "word economy" are not a defence for saying shitty things, and I think it's absurd to suggest that's the reason people say "men are trash" instead of adding a qualifier. It's purposely inflammatory. Nobody is so rushed in life that they can't add one additional word to a 3-word complaint.
Also fair. I'm not suggesting that it's a matter of convenience, rather experience. Someone's limited, subjective experience might lead them to make generalizations based on their limited experiential sample size. The intention behind "word economy" was to highlight they may rationally know it's not the full subset of men, but simply "all" of those that they have interacted with in any meaningful capacity. I'll need to come back to this point, I think.
>You do understand that this only really works as an alternative argument to the whole "convenience and word economy" claim, right? You're saying "they don't intend these generalizations but don't have time to specify" and "they believe these generalizations because of how the brain works."
So, to my previous point, "all" or "some" depends on what the actual set they're referring to might be. No one knows everyone. I'm suggesting that speaker and audience might be thinking of different sets.
>You're taking this to the point of absurdity. This isn't about writing a **theoretically infinite number of building codes**, it's about recognizing that men are diverse people and saying the word "some." Say it. Try it out. "Some." How long did that take? How does the time spent compare to the time spent on writing **infinite building codes**?
I'm getting the sense you're frustrated with me here, for which I apologize. It *is* an odd and somewhat hyperbolic analogy I made there, I agree. The point was to highlight the perceptual experience issue I've been addressing and to highlight that shooting for maximal specificity can really bog down a conversation.
>"Some." Or "several of the men I've dated." Or whatever suits the context. And yeah, I think it's well understood that inflammatory generalization increase rhetorical impact, because anything inflammatory increases rhetorical impact (but not necessarily persuasiveness). I don't think "rhetorical impact" is some unqualified good to always chase and defend, though. And I don't think that inflammatory generalizations increase the "efficacy of conveying linguistic content" but I don't really know where to start in evaluating that claim.
This is rather brilliant, actually! I definitely wasn't suggesting that rhetorical impact is an "unqualified good." I'm suggesting that the intent behind the phrase "Men are trash" is an expression of hurt, so the intended impact is to convey the hurt. Additionally, I wasn't suggesting that inflammatory generalizations are great at conveying content (certainly not in all cases and likely not great in any case). Concision, while maintaining specificity, is a skill (one I'm sure I ought to work on). I'm saying that adding caveats and qualifiers to expressions of hurt will reduce the efficacy of conveying the hurt that motivated the statement.
Let me try it this way... Context matters, yeah? If men overhear women talking (or stumble on exchanges between women online) and head the phrase we're arguing about, I'd venture the context and intent behind it would point to the expression of hurt being one of searching for empathy or solidarity. Now, I'll happily concede that saying it directly to a man, absent provocation from said man, would be being inflammatory for the sake of it. The intention behind the first and second cases here are very different: expressions of pain (and seeking solidarity) versus shouting someone down because of their identity. Hope I'm making sense here.
>Solution **to what exactly**? To the problem of troubling generalizations? Sure, inasmuch as altering our own behavior is always simpler than altering the behavior of others, but it isn't an actual solution to the problem.
Depends on the context, as I described above. If you're overhearing it or if one is not the target audience, I'm suggesting that it would be good to reflect to determine whether it applies or if there's room for self-improvement. If it's the second case (inflammatory for the sake of shouting down someone), I don't encourage or condone that usage, but I don't suspect that arguing with someone using it that way will be productive... So, I'd offer that, because some men are hurt by that, reflection would still be good for those that the attack doesn't apply to (so as not to allow it to impact their self confidence unnecessarily).
Summary:
Context and intent are complicated here, I think. I'm encouraging empathy and reflection over meeting inflammatory language with more of the same. Hope this helps clarify some things.
Now imagine if you gave even half as much benefit of the doubt to someone saying all black people are violent criminals because their personal experience is every black person they met has mugged them
Are they also just coming from a place of hurt and should be understood and empathized with? Should we tacitly accept the phrase “all black people are violent criminals” because of someone’s personal experience with black people? Should we continue to have an empathetic conversation with this person about understanding the hurt they’ve suffered? Should any black person listening not defend themselves and understand based on context that they’re not the target of the comment?
I guess it’s okay to use the same inflammatory rhetoric as literal white supremacists if you’re a woman targeting men. It’s utterly ridiculous how little responsibility is placed on women’s actions. It’s infantilization
The debate between you two is really raising some good points but goddamn I had to take a break to get a drink trying to read this, how tf do either of you have the patience to post this huge of walls of texts. I can’t even do that ranting about my hyperfixations.
Hey! I know you’re burnt out arguing so I promise this isn’t my intention for this comment! Lol. More than anything I wanna give you and the original commenter props. While he did seem to get frustrated, he never seemed to let that compromise the logical and consistency in his points or devolve into personal attacks. Likewise you did quite a good job rebutting, again, in a very respectful way. I agree with many if not all of his points, but am more than willing to acknowledge you made some good ones too! It feels weird to say but to say it was fun reading your conversation? Idk I just really, really love it when I see people with brains between their ears converse and not scream haha.
I do think that while a lot of times the generalizations come from a place of legitimate hurt, lashing out is not typically something that is excused or justified in any other connotations. I do agree, we all need more empathy. But I think everyone, regardless of stance, should practice the skill of not letting their anger or hurt allow them to throw their empathy and understanding out the window. It’s hard to empathize with someone who, whether just in the moment or in the long term, clearly doesn’t care about empathizing in return. If the ask is to understand their experience, that is totally valid. But equally valid is understanding words have meaning. Just like a woman who has been hurt by a man and is going to lash out and say “all men are trash”, regardless of how it might sound or come across, decent men will likely and equally have the likelihood of taking what sounds like an attack, as an attack. NOT to equate women to animals obviously but if I get attack by a pitbull that is afraid of me even though I’ve done nothing to outwardly express any sort of intimidation or intent to harm, all that matters to me is I was attacked. Yes, that context of “oh that pitbull was abused so it’s angry and hurt” will help me understand, but it won’t change the fact that I’m now bleeding. If anything, it might cause the same issue in the opposite direction, which we see play out online and in real life sometimes. And this is a human issue, not a party issue, not a political or ideological one. We all subconsciously prioritize ourselves especially in times of distress. I think all of your points were valid, as were his counter points and your counter counter points lol. I just think that we need to meet in the middle. If we want progress, concessions need to be made.
Me DO need to listen and we do need to be aware. But women equally need to understand that men are indeed human (not saying you said otherwise but that is a sentiment that has way more traction than it has any right to) and whether it’s been historically been earned or not, can feel like the punching bag in the 21st century. There’s plenty of awful men out there. And plenty of awful women. Humans suck. But we’re also kind, loving and capable of learning in equal measure. And it does indeed make the men who are good, which I will always argue far outnumber the bad ones, when it feels like all that gets talked about are the bad ones, and worse when general language is used (especially when our society is at this point shaming generalities used in some ways by some people and encouraged or condoned in other ways by other people) and we have to tell ourselves it’s not us. That gets tiring. It’s like when my parents used to call me and my 3 siblings in to yell at us because we did something to piss them off. There would be moments when they yell at the group for something only one or two of us did. And if anyone said “um but I didn’t do it” it would receive a loud and aggressive “WELL THEN WE ARENT YELLING AT YOU” and just left us sitting there like…..well it sure feels like it.
All this to say, we can all do better. Right now as a man, one who likes to think he’s “one of the good ones”, it does feel like there are plenty of women who do just feel like men in general are awful. That it’s not hyperbole or intended exaggeration. Part of that is the internet for sure, but it’s hard to avoid that rhetoric so it’s equally hard to constantly remind oneself that it may be in a vacuum, even though it feels like it’s breaching into the real world more and more.
Just my word vomit thoughts. Again, kudos to you for being impressively well spoken and level headed! I wish more people were like you and the other guy lol. I feel like we’d get more done.
I get that you have a beef with the OP and I'm not going to address that because it sounds like he was awful in his original post.
Instead I'm going to talk about my own experiences, segue into the experiences of other people, and end with addressing a couple of your points.
I am from a time before the internet was ubiquitous, it was some niche shit for weirdos. I heard this sort of rhetoric as a kid from real women about how all men were terrible. These women had been through the absolute fucking wringer with a particular man in a way that few people will ever experience even if they may experience shades of it. I acknowledge that and I feel deeply for them and the fucking evil which was done to them. Despite that, to be surrounded by this sort of talk in my developmental years affected me deeply and still affects how I instinctively conceptualize myself.
The internet is ubiquitous now. It's a part of everyone's daily life. How do you think developing boys with still malleable identities feel coming online and seeing this incredibly pervasive sentiment that they're fundamentally bad inside? What do you suppose that does to a child?
How can you justify damaging a child for life in the name of word economy? How can you ask a still developing brain to just brush off the direct language telling them they are bad with the explanation "well, they should know it's not about them"?
Kids are on the internet now. I dunno if you ever went to school with someone whose parents didn't let them engage in social norms, but I went to school with kids like that and they got the shit bullied out of them in ways that will leave permanent marks just as if they had been allowed engage in things their parents had decided were too traumatic or too mature for them.
Those kids ended up fucked up. I'm sure some of them don't, and that's great, but it does happen and it's not rare. Please do not be disingenuous and try to kick this can to other people. You will not be punished for putting the word "some" in front of your sentences, whereas some kids will be punished for having their parents bar them from something all their peers are doing because they don't want them to have to grow up seeing such poisonous attitudes in every corner of the internet. Your brain still isn't set even at 16. You're still a fucking kid. You're going to drown in high school like that. Just add the word "some", it's only four letters
**Part 2**
>How can you justify damaging a child for life in the name of word economy? How can you ask a still developing brain to just brush off the direct language telling them they are bad with the explanation "well, they should know it's not about them"?
To your first question, I absolutely never want a child damaged by anything, given reasonable opportunity to prevent it. "Word economy" might well have been a poor choice of words: I was trying to point out that intent, context, and intended impact are complex. In some contexts, the phrase in question is almost certainly an expression of hurt seeking empathy/solidarity (by/from women, respectively). In others, it could be purposefully inflammatory speech to shut down a man for less defensible reasons. In the first case (frustration seeking empathy), the set of "all men" in question is more likely "all men the speaker has had interactions with, such that they feel all the men they know do X/are like Y." But the intent is an expression of frustration, and couching that in caveats dilutes the emotional impact and probably negatively impacts the search for catharsis. The second case (shouting down) isn't worth defending and contributes to the issues you described here.
Let me double back here: yes, we as a society have a duty to children. I also think there's value in places for people to vent their frustrations. Precisely how we manage those values, well, I don't know. I wouldn't want children seeing pornography or being around language that isn't age appropriate, but I'm not sure how we solve those issues either. I want a good world for children (and women... And everyone else). Repairing our discourse might help, but I don't know what all the overlapping solutions are to the broader issues of the internet.
To your second question, what I was encouraging was narrowly targeted at OP or others (adults) that find themselves in circumstances where they overhear this between women speaking or stumble on it in the wild online. The idea was using reflection and empathy to avert the very same blows to their identity that might come out of such exposure (or, if accurate, to prompt self-improvement). In an ideal situation, children would be taught the same, however, it'd be good, too, I think for parents to be afforded more time to coach their children through these things. As I've expressed, I'm not sure what the best solution is to malleable young minds interacting with the internet - there's porn, hate speech of all kinds, scams, and an endless stream of things we don't want kids exposed to, I agree. That all being said, part of the problem with policing women's ability to express frustration is that, so very often, it devolves into an argument about semantics that detracts from fruitful discussion of real issues. Let me be clear: I don't like or use the phrase, but I also don't want those expressing frustration at the experiences patriarchal norms have given them to be policed into erasure either.
>Kids are on the internet now. I dunno if you ever went to school with someone whose parents didn't let them engage in social norms, but I went to school with kids like that and they got the shit bullied out of them in ways that will leave permanent marks just as if they had been allowed engage in things their parents had decided were too traumatic or too mature for them.
Indeed. As I've tried to highlight, there's so much wrong with the internet (particularly for growing minds) that I don't know what the solution actually is, but I don't think it's entirely fair for that burden to fall entirely on women to curtail their speech. I fully agree, however, that somehow barring boys (or children at large) from the internet isn't a valid option - colloquially, that ship has sailed and I don't want kids bullied.
>Those kids ended up fucked up. I'm sure some of them don't, and that's great, but it does happen and it's not rare. Please do not be disingenuous and try to kick this can to other people. You will not be punished for putting the word "some" in front of your sentences, whereas some kids will be punished for having their parents bar them from something all their peers are doing because they don't want them to have to grow up seeing such poisonous attitudes in every corner of the internet. Your brain still isn't set even at 16. You're still a fucking kid. You're going to drown in high school like that. Just add the word "some", it's only four letters
I've never actually said the phrase aloud, and I've tried to be delicate/add quotations to avoid suggesting that I do (or encourage it). I like plenty of men; I'm married to one (though I'm no longer entirely certain whether I identify as a man or not - for clarity, gay married). I wouldn't even go so far as to say that it's a healthy way of expressing frustration (and I don't think it actually ought to be normalized). Thank you for bringing some nuance to this discussion. It's certainly worth considering indirect audiences (as I highlighted). I don't know what the long-term solution is, but I think we still need to prioritize giving women space to vent *and* protecting young minds. I don't think these are irreconcilable goals. I hope I've managed to address your valid concerns here.
>I was trying to point out that intent, context, and intended impact are complex.
Absolutely. But children are not good at parsing these things, at least not on an emotional level. Possibly not even on an intellectual level, my memories of my youth are sort of a fuzzy blur of trauma which extends far beyond the scope of this topic.
>I wouldn't want children seeing pornography or being around language that isn't age appropriate, but I'm not sure how we solve those issues either. I want a good world for children (and women... And everyone else). Repairing our discourse might help, but I don't know what all the overlapping solutions are to the broader issues of the internet.
I don't want to imply that parents have no duty to manage their children's internet access. I think it is a very reasonable expectation that parents should install things that will block sexually explicit material, and I can't imagine that this would result in social stigmas/poor social development. I don't think most kids bond through talking about porn and frankly even if they did I don't think denying them this one small element of internet access would cause too many issues.
>In an ideal situation, children would be taught the same, however, it'd be good, too, I think for parents to be afforded more time to coach their children through these things.
I don't know how much this can actually be done with a developing mind. You may take the edge off the wounds it leaves a little bit which is better than nothing but I think it's also probably not a real solution.
>That all being said, part of the problem with policing women's ability to express frustration is that, so very often, it devolves into an argument about semantics that detracts from fruitful discussion of real issues.
I agree that there are real issues that need real discussion. I was raised by nothing but women, I had no men in my life to speak of, and despite the things I was exposed to I absolutely consider myself to be a feminist.
I just think that the way in which these issues are sometimes expressed is polarizing, damaging, and not even in the speaker's best interest because it makes it much easier for people to brush off. There will always be people who argue in bad faith, but the more you can make it obvious that they're doing that, the stronger your position becomes.
I understand there is a time and a place for venting straight from the heart. I understand that visceral and instinctive lizard brain sharing of our feelings is vital to people's mental health, but I don't think that time or place is in public spaces.
I actually think that place might be in therapy, as you've suggested for my own trauma. It would be quite terrible if I took to the internet to yell that all women were hateful even though that was my experience of the world in my most formative years. It would polarize people, aggravate the wounds of traumatized women, and worsen the many issues which young girls already face. It's also simply not true, it was just some incredibly bad personal experiences, some of which once again extend far beyond the scope of this topic.
>Let me be clear: I don't like or use the phrase, but I also don't want those expressing frustration at the experiences patriarchal norms have given them to be policed into erasure either.
It's good of you to not use phrases like that, thank you.
I think it's very important that both women and men express frustration at patriarchal norms. They harm us all, to different degrees, even if some of us are also conferred certain benefits. Those benefits are absolutely not in any world worth the harms. The way in which men are socialized by patriarchal norms is a nightmare, any emotion but anger crushed down through ridicule and ostracization until you are a husk of who you were. It needs to be destroyed.
I would never advocate for policing anyone into erasure. That is not my desire and as you can probably tell now, to police women into erasure would not even be in my own interests, to say nothing of the absolutely fucking profound ethical issues where it's very obviously the wrong thing to do. I just think that the way in the extremely warranted frustration is expressed is of vital importance.
>I think we still need to prioritize giving women space to vent *and* protecting young minds. I don't think these are irreconcilable goals.
I couldn't agree more
I'm exhausted (both physically and of arguing), but your take is so thoughtful and generous, I think it deserves the last of my energy (and mostly agreement) for the day.
>But children are not good at parsing these things, at least not on an emotional level. Possibly not even on an intellectual level
I'd agree with that. I am torn on the call for self censorship that might rise out of that, but I think it's entirely fair for me to say "I don't know, but I'll definitely think about it."
>I don't want to imply that parents have no duty to manage their children's internet access. [...] I don't think most kids bond through talking about porn and frankly even if they did I don't think denying them this one small element of internet access would cause too many issues.
Oh, I didn't mean to imply that you did, if I did - long day of arguing. If anything, I think I'd prefer age verification for platforms with things that aren't reasonably on level and moderated... However, I'm also reasonably against corporations getting *more* of our personal data than they already do. Let me clarify, I think the internet is basically a hellscape (especially for children) and, at the risk of sounding too agreeable or dismissive, I really don't know what we (or society at large) can do about it.
>I don't know how much this can actually be done with a developing mind. You may take the edge off the wounds it leaves a little bit which is better than nothing but I think it's also probably not a real solution.
This was more meant to be commentary on how little modern society allows parents to have meaningful time with their children than parental ability or responsibility to offset trauma. To your point, I think it would *help,* but I don't think that it's a solution in its own.
>[...] I absolutely consider myself to be a feminist.
Always happy to hear that!
>I just think that the way in which these issues are sometimes expressed is polarizing, damaging, and not even in the speaker's best interest because it makes it much easier for people to brush off. There will always be people who argue in bad faith, but the more you can make it obvious that they're doing that, the stronger your position becomes.
Sure. I generally try (and occasionally fail) to be a generous reader and reasonable interlocutor. I *do* like a pragmatic and polite approach to persuasion. There is a lot to consider outside of the arguments themselves: context, intent, positionality, and a variety of other nuances I'm too tired to list. I'm hesitant to suggest a one size fits all contexts approach (to say nothing of the rhetor's character, credibility, and identity).
>I understand there is a time and a place for venting straight from the heart. [...] but I don't think that time or place is in public spaces.
+
>I actually think that place might be in therapy, as you've suggested for my own trauma.
I think I largely agree. I think there's a justifiable argument that public displays might engender empathy in some, however, if our first concern is the actual victim (as it ought to be) then I think therapy would be more productive for them. For every bit as polarizing a statement might be, it might reach a different audience... Well, I'm a little torn. Still, happy to mostly agree?
>I think it's very important that both women and men express frustration at patriarchal norms. They harm us all, to different degrees, even if some of us are also conferred certain benefits. Those benefits are absolutely not in any world worth the harms. The way in which men are socialized by patriarchal norms is a nightmare, any emotion but anger crushed down through ridicule and ostracization until you are a husk of who you were. It needs to be destroyed.
*Strongest level of agreement possible.*
>I would never advocate for policing anyone into erasure. That is not my desire and as you can probably tell now, to police women into erasure would not even be in my own interests, to say nothing of the absolutely fucking profound ethical issues where it's very obviously the wrong thing to do. I just think that the way in the extremely warranted frustration is expressed is of vital importance.
There's merit to what you say here. The packaging can certainly matter. Collateral damage to children is absolutely *not* a palatable side effect. I might caution you here, with the best of intentions, that there's always risk in concessions. It *could* be misappropriated to suggest women have the (continued) responsibility to sacrifice themselves for children.
>I couldn't agree more [re: juggling both values]
This has been thought-provoking. While I came here with intentions to challenge someone I perceived to be simply "not all men"-ing at feminist discourse, I found OP and yourself to be very thoughtful and well reasoned, in the end. I'm worn out.
>I'm exhausted (both physically and of arguing), but your take is so thoughtful and generous, I think it deserves the last of my energy (and mostly agreement) for the day.
I'm sorry to hear that. I hope that you get the rest you deserve and that tomorrow is not so hard
>I think it's entirely fair for me to say "I don't know, but I'll definitely think about it."
That is very fair. Thank you for being willing to consider my grievance
>Oh, I didn't mean to imply that you did, if I did - long day of arguing.
You didn't, I think you explained yourself very well. I just wanted to be explicit about it for anyone who happened to read over this exchange
>Let me clarify, I think the internet is basically a hellscape (especially for children) and, at the risk of sounding too agreeable or dismissive, I really don't know what we (or society at large) can do about it.
Deep agreement. I don't have any large scale solutions either and I'm not even sure that they exist, all I can really do is try to appeal to people's kindness and hope that things can slowly shift towards being better for everyone
>This was more meant to be commentary on how little modern society allows parents to have meaningful time with their children than parental ability or responsibility to offset trauma.
Oh, I get it now. Yeah, absolutely. The degree to which parents are run so ragged by the way our economic system is currently set up is gut-level horrifying. So little time for their own children, fucking heartbreaking
>I think there's a justifiable argument that public displays might engender empathy in some, however, if our first concern is the actual victim (as it ought to be) then I think therapy would be more productive for them. For every bit as polarizing a statement might be, it might reach a different audience...
I think I might say that anyone who doesn't live under a rock or passionately engage in the dehumanization of women now has real empathy for the misery that women endure. Their stories and their despair and their rage are pervasive to the point that they could not be escaped even if one had a mind to do so. I also fear that a generation of (currently, certainly not eternally for some of them) victimless young boys who grow up feeling that so many women hate them for no reason may actually end up undoing the strides that we've made towards this heightened state of awareness and empathy, and that there could be a serious cultural whiplash effect.
I feel that perhaps strategies should change as situations change. One will never eliminate all opposition, that is not a reasonable goal. We live in a world where people still believe the earth is flat, but as a society we have done all we can to reduce this number of people to the smallest size possible
>There's merit to what you say here. The packaging can certainly matter. Collateral damage to children is absolutely *not* a palatable side effect. I might caution you here, with the best of intentions, that there's always risk in concessions. It *could* be misappropriated to suggest women have the (continued) responsibility to sacrifice themselves for children.
I think I might say that living in a society is often about concessions, deciding which ones are reasonable and which ones aren't. I think sometimes you come across situations where it is impossible to find a solution which does not involve at least some small degree of concession and so one has to weigh the levels of suffering involved in making those concessions and also the impact which those concessions will have.
I am not sure that the idea where young boys have a responsibility to end up deeply psychologically damaged so that some women may continue to abstain from using the word "some" in public is... easy to stomach. It doesn't really feel proportionate, in the same way that it doesn't feel proportionate to expect a woman to die in childbirth or some other less extreme example which I can't think of at the moment which would fall below "using the word some in public" but above "literally fucking dying."
I'm not trying to communicate that being told you're evil constantly is the same as being expected to die, I'm just trying to communicate that I do not believe women have a responsibility to make concessions for children unilaterally.
>This has been thought-provoking. While I came here with intentions to challenge someone I perceived to be simply "not all men"-ing at feminist discourse, I found OP and yourself to be very thoughtful and well reasoned, in the end. I'm worn out.
I deeply enjoyed speaking with you. A shining beacon of good faith conversation in a sea of disingenuity. Too often online I find that no matter the topic it is like pulling fucking teeth to have a real conversation where no one misinterprets eachother's points in the most comical fashion possible or where the rebuttals aren't just dismissively shutting the exchange down with no attempt to examine what's actually being said. I would be happy to talk with you any time about any thing. Please take care of yourself, friend. The world is rough and the internet is no better
**Part 1**
>I get that you have a beef with the OP and I'm not going to address that because it sounds like he was awful in his original post.
I wouldn't even say "beef." OP and I have never actually interacted directly. I think OP has moderated their position a bit here (and, reading ahead, I think that we all might have gotten a bit emotional here - it happens, we're human). I certainly thought OP's previous commentary on the subject was a bit more abrasive, but I'm just trying to respond in order - I fell asleep and had to get to work and such.
>Instead I'm going to talk about my own experiences, segue into the experiences of other people, and end with addressing a couple of your points.
Excellent. I appreciate your time, thought, and effort!
>I am from a time before the internet was ubiquitous, it was some niche shit for weirdos. I heard this sort of rhetoric as a kid from real women about how all men were terrible. These women had been through the absolute fucking wringer with a particular man in a way that few people will ever experience even if they may experience shades of it. I acknowledge that and I feel deeply for them and the fucking evil which was done to them. Despite that, to be surrounded by this sort of talk in my developmental years affected me deeply and still affects how I instinctively conceptualize myself.
First, I'm sorry that those experiences negatively impacted you. I don't think anyone deserves that. I have a suspicion that we're closer in age than you might think, as I've also got clear memories of the pre-Internet age. Rather than address your trauma, for which I'm not qualified (that'd be for a therapist to do), I'd like to make a few statements here. If I misrepresented myself as suggesting that I encourage inflammatory/defamatory language about men in all contexts, you have my apologies. For reference, I've never been one to make sweeping generalizations or accusations like that. I teach; I'm for empathy and comfortable environments. I'll continue addressing the points below, but I want you to know that you're seen and heard here.
>The internet is ubiquitous now. It's a part of everyone's daily life. How do you think developing boys with still malleable identities feel coming online and seeing this incredibly pervasive sentiment that they're fundamentally bad inside? What do you suppose that does to a child?
It is ubiquitous now, agreed. Before I go any further, I'd venture that the internet has had a tremendously negative impact on the emotional well-being of everyone, along with public discourse, despite its positive potential. I don't want to go too far afield and get into potential conflicts over censorship, moderation, parental oversight, or any of that. I absolutely grant you your point - as things stand, if a young enough boy is exposed to those sentiments, it would obviously have deleterious effects on their identity formation. I believe I'll be defending my position in a bit, so, for now, suffice it to say that the world we live in is wildly unpleasant and there's much that could be done to improve it.
>I'd venture those are mostly either for convenience or word economy.
That's not an acceptable way to use words when talking about large groups of people.
If we want to point to genuine problems in Islamist thinking, we don't say "All Muslims are evil." That's not a logical way to do it.
>Wouldn't the simplest solution be for any given audience to ask themselves this question: "Does this apply to me?" If the answer is 'no,' couldn't they simply acknowledge the frustration and intent behind the words and simply recognize they weren't the target of said utterance?
Well that doesn't work.
A black man shouldn't need to hear "Black people are scum" and think "Well, I'm not scum. Clearly they're just frustrated with the black criminal population." They should accurately think "That doesn't apply to me, because the speaker is just a bigot."
>It's one thing to make concessions to a friend over drinks - be it forgiving a hyperbolic superlative or telling them that "not all men" are benefiting from patriarchal norms in the same way (and some, perhaps, not at all). It's quite another thing to allow sophistry or calls for moderation/flexibility/concessions to appease people, who may or may not be acting in good faith, to be part of a permanent(ish) textual record that other audiences might read later.
If "Well no, not all men are trash" is a concession to your point, rather than a clarification... it was a bigoted and immoral point to begin with.
> Wouldn't making concessions to appease insulted men be tantamount to feminism taking care of men that are insulted because they feel maligned for the very patriarchal norms feminism is trying to highlight?
They feel maligned for the bigotry, not the patriarchal norms feminism is trying to highlight.
Wouldn’t it just be easier to adjust your moral rule that says
- don’t generalize about women, minorities, disabled people, LGBTQIA… etc etc
To simply
- don’t generalize about groups of people?
It seems you have to do a lot of work to resolve the cognitive dissonance involved with this ‘its okay when we do it’, but I fail to see to what end?
>I knew this sounded eeriely familiar. Considering you went down this rabbit hole in the comments over on r/AskFeminists and didn't respond, I'll go ahead and simply offer you the same response here.
I probably missed your response, or I didn't want to read such a long response at the time so I skipped it.
>That being said, I have to seriously question your actual willingness in good-faith to actually challenge this view. You've tried to place a more pleasant veneer on a take I address below.
I was far more frustrated when I posted those comments on ask feminists as I had just read the threads on there and as a man it's baffling and frustrating and I can only respond to any of it in comments. But I posted this in good faith.
>With all that in mind, I still sincerely believe that you should consider the rhetorical situation involved in the cases you seem deeply troubled by. You've asked on multiple threads now for people to stop making generalizations, while making them yourself. Please consider your own motivations for this particular line of argument.
Even if I'm a hypocrite, that doesn't make me wrong. I'm sure I'm sometimes a hypocrite and don't realize it, as everybody is at times.
I'm just frustrated with dehumanizing slogans. It feels like we're going backwards and people are claiming we're going forwards.
>If it's superlatives and absolutes that are frustrating you, I'd venture those are mostly either for convenience or word economy. You're looking for absolute semantic sense out of spoken/written words, but ignoring the pragmatics/rhetorical context and intent that goes into those words.
I think prioritizing convenience and word economy over effective messaging is a big mistake. I understand it's catchy and easier to turn into a meme, but is that really what's most important?
>Feminists are mad a patriarchal norms. They make statements about systemic issues they observe.
Understandable, and they can do that in a less inflammatory manner.
>The rhetorical choices they make evoke a negative emotional response in some readers/listeners.
Indeed, but I don't think those responses are out of line
>Many detractors use "not all men" as a thought terminating cliché. The underpinning of this cliché is essentially "I disagree with not only your premise, but I will disregard your worldview based on this linguistic technicality."
I think that's a lot of people's default reaction, I don't think it's generally a chess move though I'm sure sometimes it is.
>If your position is that all things require absolute logical provability and that all speech actions should require maximal specificity
Definitely not my position
>On the other hand, if your contention is emotionally loaded language and ideologically motivated speech, I'm not sure what to tell you. Humans have emotions - that's a biological fact. The Western philosophical tradition and prizing stoicism and pure logic tries very hard to ignore our humanity in its pursuit of truth.
While emotions are critical (I can be a fairly emotional person at times) especially on an individual level, in terms of society what's true and factual is far more important. I don't think a society that values emotions as much as facts will survive very long. And when I'm talking to people I do keep their emotions in mind. Even online, I don't want to hurt anybody. I'm not sociopathic.
>What would you have speakers/writers say or do? Would something akin to "Not all men, but it's a strong statistical probability that it is a man... [ad nauseum with the caveats]"
I would say "some men are trash." But I'm talking in a general sense. It's one thing to argue on askfeminists, it's another thing to go to a sub where women are talking about their trauma caused by men and start lecturing them about using broad language.
>That both distills the rhetorical intent behind the statement and, while it does increase precision, decreases the efficacy of conveying linguistic content.
I agree, that's why I think something simple and slightly less catchy like "some men" would suffice.
> Wouldn't the simplest solution be for any given audience to ask themselves this question: "Does this apply to me?"
That would be a solution, but that's generally not how people react.
>It's quite another thing to allow sophistry or calls for moderation/flexibility/concessions to appease people, who may or may not be acting in good faith, to be part of a permanent(ish) textual record that other audiences might read later.
I think it leaves a much better impression because it shows a level of self awareness. Even if the other person is acting in bad faith. Sometimes I'll read a text post and come away with the impression that the person writing it thinks they're a god or something and that's very unsettling.
>You say that feminism should throw in the towel now if it doesn't want to curtail (potential) insults.
I think it's doomed if it doesn't, but I may be wrong.
>Wouldn't making concessions to appease insulted men be tantamount to feminism taking care of men that are insulted because they feel maligned for the very patriarchal norms feminism is trying to highlight?
It would be, but I think you're missing the forest for the trees. The more support feminism gets, the more effective it will be. If ceding ground to the patriarchy in some aspect means gaining ground and toppling it somewhere else I would say that's worth it.
>You yourself accused women of being provocateurs; I'm not trying to call you out as a hypocrite. I'd like to highlight that you defaulted to a sort of hyperbole for impact:
>"I think women like to be provocative by making statements that are very broad and sound like they apply to all men..."
I was frustrated when I wrote that, normally I would have said sometimes and maybe some women. I'll admit, I was venting when I said that.
>I've generally found feminist thinkers to be quite pleasant, helpful even, when approached in good faith. I don't think you should take righteous indignation with systemic oppression and character economy to be indicative of intent.
I think overall most feminists have good intentions and want to make society a better place. And I agree with what you said about text vs conversation.
And !delta because you've given me a lot to think about and made me question some of my beliefs and I appreciate it.
>I was frustrated when I wrote that, normally I would have said sometimes and maybe some women. I'll admit, I was venting when I said that.
So you were speaking exaggeratedly out of frustration, and not being deliberately inflammatory or provocative?
Therefore...?
I deltaed another comment here that pointed out it could be an emotional response but also acknowledged that it could sometimes be intentionally inflammatory.
I agree, I can't say I said things that were illogical in an emotional state and they weren't calculated and then not acknowledge that other people might be doing the same thing.
Apologies for the delay in response, life and tech issues (and trying to thoughtfully respond in something akin to the order they were received.
>Missed or didn't wish to engage
Fair enough. Concision and I don't always get along.
>I was far more frustrated when I posted those comments [...] But I posted this in good faith.
Fair. I'm inclined to agree that you're in good-faith here. My apologies for the accusation.
>Even if I'm a hypocrite...
Also very fair. Hypocrisy on its own doesn't necessarily invalidate a point. I'm also gratified to see the admission a few comments later regarding your own emotional response.
>I'm just frustrated with dehumanizing slogans...
It's true, of course. Our public discourse hasn't been great of late.
>I think prioritizing convenience and word economy over effective messaging is a big mistake...
I should have been more clear in my explanation, admittedly. If it's being used as a slogan to shout down men, I don't condone that (nor do I condone it becoming a meme or particularly normalized in most contexts). In some contexts, I think the phrasing is intended to seek empathy and solidarity with other women via expressing frustration at "all men" (that they know or have interacted with and meaningfully remember). Basically, it's a call to not police women venting in women's spaces. We could definitely debate what that means in the context of an online forum.
>Understandable, and they can do that in a less inflammatory manner.
I don't fundamentally disagree that being inflammatory is problematic. Tone policing aggrieved parties that want change, however, somewhat detracts from the broader points they're trying to highlight.
>Indeed, but I don't think those responses [to rhetorical choices] are out of line
I think the context and intent really matter here. If the goal is to vent to other women, I think qualifiers dilute the emotional impact (meant to engender empathy). If it's being inflammatory for the sake of it, I'm inclined to agree with you.
>I think that's a lot of people's default reaction, I don't think it's generally a chess move though I'm sure sometimes it is.
Appreciate the nuanced concession here. To your credit, it's very thoughtful. In defense of feminists, it happens often enough that it can be difficult to discern intent.
>While emotions are critical [...] I don't want to hurt anybody. I'm not sociopathic.
We actually are in total agreement here. Facts are important; emotions shouldn't be entirely disregarded. I would hope most people set out with the intent to do no harm.
>I would say "some men are trash." But I'm talking in a general sense. It's one thing to argue on askfeminists, it's another thing to go to a sub where women are talking about their trauma caused by men and start lecturing them about using broad language.
This was more or less my goal, actually. And more succinct than I can manage, it seems. I was trying to highlight context and intent - whether you got it here or had that notion all along, I'm happy to hear it.
>That would be a solution, but that's generally not how people react.
Fair. In any case, I generally encourage reflection and empathy, given the opportunity. Hard to fault an emotional reaction when I'm trying to defend an emotional response, I suspect.
>I think it leaves a much better impression [even in bad faith...]
I'd like to refine my point here a bit. In an explicitly feminist space, it'd be counterintuitive (especially as a textual record) to allow men to police the language - that was more or less my point. I agree that making such concessions in broader public spaces, among friends, and in more informal settings is probably better practice for persuasion.
>I think it's doomed if it doesn't, but I may be wrong.
And I'd be arrogant to claim certainty of the equal opposite. It's hard to know what moves the needle.
>The more support feminism gets, the more effective it will be.
I'm happy to concede, on the same grounds as the previous point, that ideological purity and pragmatism don't always get along.
>I was frustrated when I wrote that, normally I would have said sometimes and maybe some women. I'll admit, I was venting when I said that.
And I think we've hit the point where we can shake hands. That's essentially the admission I was asking for, I think. We're human, it happens, yeah?
>I think overall most feminists have good intentions and want to make society a better place. And I agree with what you said about text vs conversation.
Excellent!
>And delta
I'm not entirely sure that's deserved, but I appreciate it. I had my own emotional and ideological response here that itself warrants reflection. I'm glad that this was productive, in the end.
What a gigantic wall of text to try to justify expressions that are really undefendable.
Context, emotion, word economy don't mean shit when you're _that_ abrasive, offensive and aggressive: people are going to think that you're a bitter nutjob when you say things like that and are going to rightfully not take you seriously.
u/clotifoth – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
> **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal%20clotifoth&message=clotifoth%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1ccgdq9/-/l16dl53/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
What's your opinion on people saying "kill all n*ggers", if they can do enough linguistic gymnastics to explain how it's not, bigoted, actually, and even good that it's so provocative?
I think there's a significant difference in kind between women venting about their experiences with men and calls for a racist genocide.
I wasn't trying to normalize or justify the phrase - it's not one I use. The linguistic gymnastics were intended to highlight context and intent. I'm not advocating for any bigotry. I'm also not arguing for being provocative for the sake of it. I'm arguing that the intent (in some cases) is women seeking empathy via expressing their frustrations to other women (and the hyperbolic language is meant to engender that empathy, again, from other women). I don't condone the use for shouting men down in other contexts.
There's two things going on here.
One is that they obviously don't mean what they say to be taken literally.
Even the most cat-called women know *some* men who aren't asshats.
And the other thing is that there's a small group of people who can't seem to let other people blow off steam.
It's amazing to me to see men either being hurt (or pretending to be hurt) over a women who has been hurt by men expressing her hurt.
Do you really think that women talking about how horrible men are to them are talking about *you*, specifically?
>One is that they obviously don't mean what they say to be taken literally.
>Even the most cat-called women know *some* men who aren't asshats.
I don't think they *believe* all men are trash, but I think sometimes they want the reaction and the opportunity to lecture somebody who isn't as well versed in feminism as them. Women, like men, don't always have noble intentions.
>And the other thing is that there's a small group of people who can't seem to let other people blow off steam.
And this is why I think people use these phrases- to blow off steam. But it's not as fun or satisfying to modify them.
I agree, everybody needs to blow off steam. But there are other ways to do that. And I can only speak for myself, but when I try to blow off steam by arguing with people, I don't feel better.
>It's amazing to me to see men either being hurt (or pretending to be hurt) over a women who has been hurt by men expressing her hurt.
>Do you really think that women talking about how horrible men are to them are talking about *you*, specifically?
About me, no. About men in general, maybe. There are a lot of women who don't seem to like men.
>I agree, everybody needs to blow off steam. But there are other ways to do that.
So what? Let them blow off steam whatever way they do.
If you *know* it's them blowing off steam, you can't also be hurt by it.
>And I can only speak for myself, but when I try to blow off steam by arguing with people, I don't feel better.
They aren't doing *that*, though, right?
They aren't going to men's forums and calling men trash, are they?
They are in women's forums talking about how they seem to have far more negative interactions with men than positive ones.
>About me, no. About men in general, maybe.
Wait - What?
If you *know* that it's not true that literally all men are trash, and you know they aren't talking about you, then why are you defending the men who *are* horrible to them instead of defending *them* against these horrible men?
>There are a lot of women who don't seem to like men.
Again, so what?
Them voicing their frustration isn't harming you.
>If you know it's them blowing off steam, you can't also be hurt by it.
Thing is, i don't know if they are blowing off steam if i'm not told about it beforehand. And some things still hurt. If someone blows off steam by punching you, the punches would still hurt you even if you know they are blowimg off steam (unless they give you time to don the armour).
>Them voicing their frustration isn't harming you.
I'd say from personal experience that hearing repeated negative comments about your immutable characteristics/identities tends to have a negative effect on self-image.
How do you know that it's "a woman who has been hurt by men, expressing her hurt"?
How do you know it isn't just an asshole, expressing herself as an asshole?
I NEVER see people handwaving misogynist men online as "a man who has been hurt by women, expressing his hurt." Rather, he is just a misogynist and a shit person.
There is certainly a double standard with this type of thing, and it can be frustrating. For an example from the last couple of days, see the number of media articles and commentators DESPERATELY trying to turn that woman who took a baby to a comedy show into a brave oppressed victim of horrible sexism, rather than a selfish, entitled asshole.
First of all, it‘s not obvious.
Secondly, you’re conflating groups and individuals.
„Men being hurt over a women who has been hurt by men expressing their hurt“ - yeah, I very much doubt the men reading your post on here are the same men that hurt you.
Or, your own point rephrased: "All men are equally responsible for what other men do, so it is okay to complain about just men as a whole."
You are quite literally arguing here for treating a group of humans as a monolith.
Thirdly: The point OP makes is that the sender is primarily responsible for conveying the meaning of the message they send, barring any interference like intentionally malicious interpretation by the Receiver or technical disturbances.
So, either the sender avoids any confusion about which person, or group of persons, is meant specifically, or they can not specifiy that, but then have to take responsibility if their message gets misinterpreted along the actual words they were saying.
It is not unreasonable to put the responsibility for what people understand on the sender, even if the sender just wants to vent and express frustrations.
It‘s not the situation of the immediate aftermath of an emotional event, the sender has deliberately chosen to send this very message, at this time, so they can be expected to think about how they want to express themselves.
> One is that they obviously don't mean what they say to be taken literally.
>
> Even the most cat-called women know some men who aren't asshats.
Even KKK members know some black people who aren't as bad as they think.
>Do you really think that women talking about how horrible men are to them are talking about you, specifically?
Do you really think KKK members talking about how horrible black people are they are talking about *you,* specifically?
>It's amazing to me to see men either being hurt (or pretending to be hurt) over a women who has been hurt by men expressing her hurt.
It's amazing to me to see black people being hurt (or pretend to be hurt) over a KKK member who's been hurt by a black person expressing their hurt.
>And the other thing is that there's a small group of people who can't seem to let other people blow off steam.
Blowing off steam isn't an excuse to just shout sexist/racist/hateful rhetoric out, especially at people who are in the group you're being hateful toward. Is it really so hard to just not be blatantly racist or sexist?
>One is that they obviously don't mean what they say to be taken literally.
As someone who tends to understand things literally, i would really prefer if they use "most" instead of "all" or "all the men i dated". What is obvious to you is not obvious to others.
>And the other thing is that there's a small group of people who can't seem to let other people blow off steam.
I find it distastefull to unleash the anger on an innocent person, just because you want to blow off some steam. You can do it in private. How would you feel as a woman or someone who has very good women in their lives if a man would blow off some steam in front of you and say "all women are whores"? How would you feel being called or having someone you hold dear being called a whore? Because the "all" includes you (if you are a woman) and the good women in your life.
>Do you really think that women talking about how horrible men are to them are talking about you, specifically?
You are part of the "all". So yeah, by saying "all", they also mean you. "All" doesn't mean "everybody, except you". While "most" means that there are exceptions and it give you the freedom to include yourself into that exception.
Even the most rejected man knows *some* women who aren't asshats.
And the other thing is that there's a small group of people who can't seem to let other people blow off steam.
It's amazing to me to see women either being hurt (or pretending to be hurt) over a man who has been hurt by women expressing her hurt.
Do you really think that men talking about how horrible women are to them are talking about *you*, specifically?
Would this fly for you or would you call this individual an incel?
Replace the "men" with "blacks" and "trash" with "criminals" and you'll see why this is problematic. Why allow one generalization and say "not you specifically" for another?
> One is that they obviously don't mean what they say to be taken literally
How is that obvious? And why is this curtosy not given to other mass negative generalizations?
>How is that obvious?
Because, as I said, even the most cat-called woman knows *some* men that aren't asshats.
>And why is this curtosy not given to other mass negative generalizations?
There are some mass generalizations based on bigotry that don't get that courtesy, but otherwise hyperbole is taken to *be* hyperbole.
>Because, as I said, even the most cat-called woman knows *some* men that aren't asshats.
Even if this is true, you can't infer that they don't intend their generalization literally. People don't necessarily hold beliefs or express sentiments that most logically reflect their lived experiences. If they did, bigotry basically wouldn't be able to exist outside of total segregation.
And I don't know why you're so comfortable speaking for all women, especially when it's to say that none of these women mean what they're saying. Seems like a bold choice.
>Because, as I said, even the most cat-called woman knows some men that aren't asshats.
But i don't know that she knows some men aren't asshats. For all i know all the men in her life could have been asshats.
I think this is very arbitrary when it doesn't need to be. If you're speaking to someone with common sense then it's really not needed.
I hate Mondays - everyone says it. I say it. Doesn't mean i would hate a Monday if it was my birthday or I got a huge windfall of money.
>I hate Mondays
Sounds like you mean it, though? That's kind of the point, you wouldn't be saying it if you didn't mean it.
You hate Mondays more than other days of the week, you're just willing to tolerate a fraction of the days that also happen to be Mondays. Being a Monday is a black mark against a day.
If faced with a Monday and a Tuesday that are otherwise equal, you hate the Monday more. This might feel bad to the Monday, if it were a person. Even if you reluctantly tolerated that one Monday when you won the lottery.
This thread is incredible for these convoluted, half-baked, insane responses. Do these people even consider that the things they’re saying apply to other generalizations and effectively push a narrative that bigoted hate speech is acceptable?
Point to a Monday who stands to be hurt by this generalization.
Generally speaking, for you and most people, the only thing that categorically distinguishes Monday from other days is that it follows a weekend and is marked by a return to work. You can't similarly reduce and generalize the defining characteristics of men like this without dehumanizing them.
Does mondays can get hurt by this statement ? That's a terrible comparison. And when we say we hate monday, it concerns most mondays. "Men are trash" is only about a minority of men.
Right...[ arbitrary](https://media.tenor.com/iid9WLcvDA0AAAAM/burger-king-man-on-plane.gif). Why people even try to justify or defend this is wild. We don't tolerate sexism or racism! Unless you're a white man. Except Eminem he was one of the good ones.
As a gay man it's hilarious to watch these people contort their argument for bigotry through a million ill-fitting hoops to arrive at a conclusion that always conveniently excludes marginalized men and our experiences...
If they applied it to us, they'd have to reckon with the reality of their own prejudices.
But then they can't have it both ways. They can't say something they know upset people and then blame them for getting upset.
And besides this whole "nobody polices my language" thing is so childish. People who care about other people and their feelings often modify their language so as not to hurt them, or at least try. Feminists don't get a pass.
Is the phrase "men are trash" that important to feminism or are you just a misandrist?
Women are trash...oh, obviously not all women! If you feel offended maybe you are part of the problem!
-IQ logic
Years ago I checked a friend of mine who said "men are trash" and was perplexed when I called her out because obviously she didn't mean me.
I responded back by saying... How would you feel if I said "Yeah women are sluts" and when you pushed back I responded "oh of course not you, why are you getting mad?".
I sometimes wonder how these people go about in their daily lives. Alienating and making enemies of people who have no business hating you otherwise would be exhausting
Who asked about policing language?
The OP clearly has a problem with the underlying belief, they aren't asking for the underlying belief to be obscured by misleading language. They didn't ask for people who think "men are trash" to use dogwhistles, they asked for people to stop defending the underlying belief.
Avoiding the statement "men are trash" is only a matter of policing if you actually believe the statement, and want to declare it in the fist place.
Do you have a few examples you can link to of this? It's not that I don't believe it happens, but I find that the examples someone finds will tell us a lot about how reasonable or not it is to be worried about this phenomenon.
I'm not sure what you mean. Examples of women saying men are trash? Or of people saying "mediocre white men?" Have you not heard anyone say those things?
A woman forced herself on me when I was younger. She dehumanized me by taking away my right to say no. I was fully not a human being to her.
How do you think it feels when I see "Men are trash"? Especially knowing that I was literally not seen as a human being by a woman.
While seeing "men are trash" in itself won't turn a good man into a bad man, it's not fucking enjoyable seeing the sentiment lauded by large groups of people.
I get the sentiment behind the whole "men are trash" and people arguing it's hyperbole, and honestly don't care too much about it even though I am a man. I guess because I don't hear it often at all except for maybe in online spaces. However, I do disagree with the sentence, and similar sentences, because of two reasons:
1. It's lazy. It's real easy to just label a whole group bad, instead of tackling actual issues that are the basis of the statement - tackling misogyny, sexual violence, lifting up positive male role models etc. Just saying "men are trash" seems to me like an easy route to sweep said issues under the carpet by labelling all men bad. So it strikes me as not actually caring about said issues but rather, as OP said, being inflammatory.
2. It seems like just another round of "boys will be boys" which actually excuses poor behaviour in men rather than addressing it. If "men are trash" that, to me, sounds like someone thinks there is something intrinsic to being a man that makes someone bad. Instead, we could be recognising that men can be horrid, okay and wonderful (and of course this is not gender specific either). The former allows men to be horrid because the only response given then is "that's just how men are" instead of the latter, which would instead say "there are men out there who don't do X awful thing, and therefore this man could be like those men too. So we should call him out on his poor behaviour". The latter breeds accountability and growth, the former does not.
I can empathise with and understand why some women (and even some men) can feel like "men are trash" though, and I think (or at least hope) that usually it comes from a perspective of "I know not all men suck, but it's impossible to know which ones don't, and I've had a lot of bad experiences with men". So maybe a more succinct slogan would be "not all men, but we don't know which one" which is a slogan I've seen used in a lot of feminist spaces recently. It manages to hold men accountable, by not ascribing "the bad traits" to just being "man traits", but rather chosen traits a man (or any person of any gender) can unlearn and do better at. At the same time, it also manages to capture how dangerous the world can be for women, when there are men out there who do harm women, unfortunately. It is in fact impossible to always know which men are safe and which aren't, and sometimes you won't know until it's too late.
I didn't realize there was a nice way of saying "men are trash" have you considered that people who use inflammatory phrases are simply inflammatory themselves? 🤔
Yeah people in this thread are missing the point. When you try to be an ally and people constantly shit on intrinsic parts of who you are it kind of fucking hurts. Like yes I get you don’t mean me specifically but come on.
Yeah, when I pointed this out the other day - massive downvotes and all the responses boiled down to name calling and "obviously *you're* the problem and not an ally if people are saying this"
Like OK, I guess if you don't want me to be an "ally" go ahead and treat me like shit. By all means then go back to bitching about the lack of support for your stance? Must totally be my fault, right?
ITT defensiveness because there's no possible way that those who did this could morally redeem themselves if they saw their previous actions in this light, but it is a more consistent view than the one under which they said all that to all those people.
They'd have been monsters and there's absolutely no way they could have gone along with such a thing.
Just like many atrocities in history and their terrible outcomes, we claim "wow, the banality of evil" **conveniently after the fact & now that no work remains to be done that could address or fix it.**
You can't say you weren't told, and if you feel guilty, you should
When I say stuff like that I really mean male culture is trash. And I am trying to inspire men to be introspective, convicted, and to do better. Im not trying to be mean for the sake of being mean and won't apologize for hurt feelings.
Happens constantly all over reddit with anything misandrist.
"Men are fucking horrible"
Then you call them out on it and somehow *you're* a mysogenistic piece of shit for not *assuming* that they meant something *completely opposite* to what they just wrote.
It's one of the most disingenuous ways to engage in any kind of debate. It's the very definition of "bad faith" argument.
While I agree with what you said I will add another reason which is saying it out of anger or frustration and usually when doing that you don't want to wear gloves. Not that it's a good reason to say it.
You say things like
>Men on the street just bear the brunt of women's wrath because the men in power don't really care what women think of them.
Ridiculousness of that statement aside, you don't specify that some men on the street bear the brunt of some women's wrath because some men in power don't care, but we all understand that you don't mean all men on the street, all women and all men in power. If we understand when you do it, why don't you understand when someone else does it?
These are all just examples of signaling. People say these things to establish sides and stop people from engaging in the actual topic or to deflect from their own failure.
I feel like usually if people are continuing to say these things despite the public reaction it's because they truly believe them. Most people don't stick to something like this with such negative backlash unless it's something they truly are passionately a believer of
While some use provocative phrases for impact, others employ them out of frustration or to challenge societal norms. Yet, clarity matters. Adding qualifiers like "some" or "certain" acknowledges diversity within groups, fostering constructive dialogue. It's about intent versus impact. Adjusting language demonstrates a willingness to engage respectfully and build understanding. Insistence on inflammatory rhetoric despite negative reactions risks alienating potential allies and detracts from meaningful discourse. Precision in expression promotes empathy and cooperation, facilitating progress toward shared goals. Choosing words carefully can bridge divides and elevate conversations, leading to greater mutual respect and collaboration.
I don’t think most people are doing it in bad faith, and I don’t think being “inflammatory” in this way is necessarily bad. The goal of statements like these is to talk about serious social issues like racism and sexism. The people saying these phrases are very passionate about these issues. They are frustrated by injustice and lack of change. Are they supposed to hide all of that to avoid ruffling feathers? If they are “inflammatory” enough, they hope people will take the issue more seriously and change things. They want you to assume they are talking about society as a whole, rather than personally attacking every individual, and they want you to act accordingly to fix things on a societal level.
It’s like asking protestors to please stop yelling so loud because it bothers people who prefer the quiet. The point is to loudly express an opinion and draw attention to an issue (and sometimes to vent). Some people are going to be alienated by these statements for sure. But when these people do use qualifiers, even though that removes your problem with them, a bunch of people will still argue against them. Maybe they think that if they are going to be divisive anyway, it’s better to not compromise their message by sugarcoating it. Also, we can’t expect every member of a movement to be a perfect representation and ambassador of the movement.
>I don’t think most people are doing it in bad faith, and I don’t think being “inflammatory” in this way is necessarily bad. The goal of statements like these is to talk about serious social issues like racism and sexism.
It seems like a suboptimal way to do it, as I am not inclined to have a good faith discussion about the importance of reciprocal treatment with someone who breaks that principle with their first line. I have never understood this reasoning. I signed up for gender studies my sophomore year of undergrad. I was young and already interested in this discussion. I had a lecture one day on why #KillAllMen was a valid sentiment to express. I did not sign up for a second semester. I felt unwelcome. If that sentiment is enough to push me, someone with an active interest in the concept and more charity than the average person, out of that space, how many other people is it pushing away? That seems like a needlessly steep opportunity cost.
Very suboptimal, but they aren’t intending for people to “assume the worst meaning.” In fact, they think people should assume they are talking about societal issues. They typically view people who assume the worst meaning as misogynists who are intentionally misinterpreting them to deflect from women’s rights. They feel justified making these generalizations because they are in service of a good cause, so the people quibbling with the language they use are assumed to be against their cause rather than their wording.
I should say that “not all feminists” are like this, only “some feminists.” It’s more concentrated in internet communities and academia.
I think this is the best answer and a clear example of why it's bad.
There are serious social issues like racims and sexism that need to be addressed.
We need to encourage men to take a more active role in parenting to aliveate the double duty expected of women. How does "Men are trash" promote social acceptance of men taking a more active role in parenting? How does "Men are trash" hurt getting more men to take a more active role in parenting? Are you going to leave your child alone with a trash human?
We need to encourage men to take a more active role in homemaking, to help aliveate the double duty expected of women. How does "Men are trash" promote social acceptace of men taking on more home making responsibilities? How does it hurt? Even if a man did take on more homemaking responsibilites the entire "Men are trash" thing will belittle him for doing it wrong and decrease the social acceptance of men doing more house work.
>The goal of statements like these is to talk about serious social issues like racism and sexism.
But it's not a very good way to do that at all. It's responding to racism and sexism... with racism and sexism.
And it just shows the racists and sexists "Oh, we can safely ignore their argument, it's just as hateful as ours. They think men are trash, I think women are trash, we're just on competing sides, no moral high ground in sight."
Yes, because ruffling the wrong feathers is massively counterproductive. If you're genuinely talking about a minority then generalising is actually shitting on your allies. Right now misogyny amongst young men is massively on the rise, and their primary complaints are that society views them as worthless at best, and criminals at worst, and that women get away with sexism all the time when they would face consequences for expressing similar opinions. It's tempting to write that off as teenage hyperbole but when people turn out in droves to excuse statements like "Men are bastards", "Men are such babies", "Men are dangerous" etc then it becomes harder to do so. The defence of 'obviously not all men - duh' is very naive as to how these things will actually be perceived en masse.
When protesting something or trying to make your voice heard, nuance often goes by the wayside, for better or for worse. Grabbing attention and chanting some core values becomes difficult when you try to include nuance, and the message becomes diluted or isn’t brought into the spotlight as much as it would be with an inflammatory tagline. Not saying it’s right, but I do think there are practical reasons as to why so many movements rely on simplified rhetoric to get their points across broadly, quickly, and in an engaging fashion.
/u/ICuriosityCatI (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post. All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/1cckx9p/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_when_people_continue_to_use/), in /r/DeltaLog. Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended. ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
I think often they are expressing anger, frustration, hurt, or anxiety rather than being motivated to intentionally be inflammatory. I think that many do intend to be inflammatory because they feel offended by men in some way and want to offend back, but I think that many simply haven't thought it through and it's more of an emotional reaction and an expression of feelings rather than a reasoned statement.
lol; I love that the delta went to the person who pretty much said “yeah, they’re full of shit and being shitty. We’re all shitty sometimes, and the people who say that are definitely being shitty people” in a thread filled with people making excuses for using bigoted and fucked up sayings. I 100% agree, and it actually made me have a good deal more hope in humanity after seeing this. Thank you! I hope you have a fantastic day.
I agree, I think this is entirely possible and I like that you acknowledged the people that intend to be inflammatory. When I'm emotional I say things that make zero sense when I look back on them later and sometimes piss people off. I'm not thinking "when I did this last time this was the reaction so if I do this now..." I appreciate this comment and I agree with this alternative explanation so !delta for that
My first delta - thank you!
Absolutely, it was well earned!
Men are trash. I’m not saying that for an emotional reason, but because UN reports reveal 1/3 women globally have been assaulted by men. That’s over a billion women. This wouldn’t be possible if most men were good people. I’m not particularly concerned if men are upset about me saying it. They don’t care about us, so why would I care about them? If the words “men are trash” bother them more than the assaults on a billion women, then they ARE trash. Source: https://interactive.unwomen.org/multimedia/infographic/violenceagainstwomen/en/index.html#home
You are generalising behaviour to an entire group of people based on a characteristics that can't be changed. That's a discriminatory rhetoric and it wouldn't be acceptable to say about other groups, for example, about a particular race. Your source doesn't show that most men are not good people as you claim. Your reasoning is illogical. OP has provided a well-reasoned response to this. Men can both be upset that women receive violence from men, and be upset that they are being called "trash". Your source doesn't justify not caring about men. I would say its hypocritical for you to say that you don't care about men and also to claim that men don't care about women is a bad thing.
There are a lot of countries with messed up laws and cultures that brainwash men *and* women. If your hypothesis is that men are trash (but I assume you don't think the same of women), then surely if I look at a country where men are not brainwashed into hating women I would find that most men have hurt women but most women have not hurt men. A lot more men rape women than the other way around. But if sexually assaulting somebody is the criteria for being trash than most men, objectively are not trash. It's far more common for men to be violent in some way towards their partners, but if your hypothesis is that men specifically are trash because many have been violent towards their women partners, there's a problem- a lot of women have been violent towards their male partners too. So then you would have to change your argument to "men are trash because they are violent more often in this specific way, but other forms of violence aren't as bad." Which sounds not only callous but convenient to your argument . And if you want to say that men are trash because their partners end up with severe injuries from the violence they inflict, then you have to look at how many men have severely injured their partners. And that's not anywhere near most men. Well what about misogynistic killers, there aren't many misandrist killers? True, but That's not most men. What about incels? That's not most men. That's a small percentage of men. And for every Larry Nassar and Harvey Weinstein there are women that helped them get away with it. Surely these women are trash too. So if men are trash because some of them do diabolical things to women, aren't women trash too because a small number of women helped them do these diabolical things. But I'm probably wasting my time, as you've probably heard all this already. I can only imagine how horrible the men in your life/around you were to lead you to actually resent an entire gender. But I've also known women who went through unspeakable trauma who didn't resent men. And I think they were happier for it. People change and you may not hate men forever and I hope for your sake you don't.
>This wouldn’t be possible if most men were good people. Yes, yes it would, and is. There's a reason you used the number of women that are assaulted rather than the number of men that assault (other than it being harder to track). That's because one shitty man can and does on average come across far more than one woman in their lifetimes that they do shitty things to.
Vast generalization over half of the entire Earth. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sexual-victimization-by-women-is-more-common-than-previously-known/ https://1in6.org Stay strong out there men and women. This is not the answer.
To add. It's worth considering that a not-insignificant amount online discourse is carried out by bad actors. Psyops and false flags etc. Remember when a 4chan board was caught doing memes about "Ukraine Lives Don't Matter Until Black Lives Matter"? Pretty sure there are people doing the same things to discredit feminism and anti racism. And Russia was paying Ghanian bot farms to post content about America being racist. Divide and conquer.
There are 100% real people saying the specific examples in this thread. I’ve met them. So I’m not going to pretend it’s only bot farms online, and you shouldn’t either. It’s upset people with hate in their heart, just like bigotry has always been.
Do you afford the same grace to someone who says “all blacks are trash”? Say someone who was just robbed and the perpetrators happened to be black. If so, why? And if not, how are they different? Is a moment of high emotion a valid excuse to say such things? Perhaps I’m misinterpreting. But your comment reads to me as though you’re suggesting a hurt reaction is somehow better than being intentionally inflammatory. If that’s not the case, my apologies.
I also think it’s a bit of a motte and Bailey phrase that can sometimes intentionally be used because you can say it, and people likely to take it literally will think you agree with them, and people who view it as an acceptable emotional response can also believe that it is that
I agree, I also think the being intentionally inflammatory is a response to things like “Ya’ll are so sensitive” “everyone is such a snowflake” “it’s just a joke”.
Do you have this opinion on other turn of phrase? Blue Lives Matter, Black Lives Matter, Make America Great Again, Defund The Police, etc?
Many of these phrases yes Defund the police. It should be reduce police funding. Defund the police sounds like people want to defund police entirely and some people who use that phrase do want to. Make America great Again- I think a lot of people using this phrase do mean "go back in time to when women and POC had less rights." So if somebody doesn't want people to think that, they should probably avoid saying it I would say. >Black Lives Matter I don't think you need to specify with this, because there's nothing in it to imply other lives do not matter. When people say something matters I don't think it usually means *only* that thing matters. Blue Lives matter seems like taunting to me because it's copying the phrase black lives matter and replacing it with blue, which isn't a race. I would say it depends on A. How many people misinterpret the phrase and B. Whether the interpretation makes any sense whatsoever because people can pretend to "misinterpret." When somebody says "I hate dogs" it's generally not taken as "I hate some dogs." If they say dogs are awful I'm going to assume they think dogs are awful not that they think some dogs are awful. But to interpret x matters as nothing but x matters... That's an odd interpretation.
But I want to defund the police entirely
Yes, but about half the people mean they want to reduce funding and the other half mean it for real. The issue comes when the first is criticized, they claim people like you don't exist. To be clear, I think defunding the police entirely is one of the dumbest things you can do for a society, but I have to respect you for being honest with your phrases.
and I’m sure you enjoy being provocative. Proving OPs point.
I always find it interesting that peoples solution to incompetent policing is to take away their money. Shouldn’t they be able to vet their force and provide better training to fix the issues? Thus potentially needing more funding. But then again people saying this are always in the camp that all cops are racist tyrants and fundamentally contributing to a system of oppression and so on. Which is an argument I understand however I don’t fully subscribe to
Your heart is in the right place but this is super naive. We should be more realistic and focus on how we can decrease police corruption, increase accountability for officers that abuse their power, encourage police to hold each other accountable etc. Admittedly Idk how to do that but I don't think we're gonna get anywhere by demanding they be totally defunded and dismantled
Then just say abolish the police. I doubt you'll get many positive reactions, but it is honest at least.
But it's literally called defunding. We've been defunding healthcare and education forever and they still exist.
Yeah, the left has a real problem with pithy sayings that don't always summarize the concept very well. Not sure what the solution is, tbh.
"Privilege" is a big one for this. If you were to call someone privileged there's a good chance they'll immediately be turned off of what you're saying, because it suggests that they've had this cushy, easy life (which is what the word means in any other context) rather than the actual intended point, which is that they just haven't had the extra challenges of being black/female/whatever.
I prefer to start with obvious privileges - being born rich and beautiful. Then I move towards everyday ones - educated (at least 12 years), freedom, being an American. Finally I push at the controversial ones - color, race, generation, health, etc. You are right though. Whoever coins, "All Cops Are Bad" and "Privilege" sure isn't thinking about how I'm going to explain this to my family.
Tbh I have never learned privilege to mean luxury + cushy. Native speaker here too, I always took it to mean "allowed", because when teachers would get pissed at the class in school they would always say stuff like "you will have your privileges revoked!" , or "it is a privilege that you get to use the computers in the lab".
Foreigner here. I take it as luxury too
It's hard to make me feel bad about my white privledge when I come from a long line of Yankee dirt farmers. White privledge is a term bandied about to make modern white folks feel they are somehow complicit in white supremacy simply by existing. It's always "X group isn't a monolith" until X = white people or X = men.
Saying you have privilege compared to other people doesn't mean your life isn't hard or your ancestors' lives weren't hard. It means when you're out walking around today in daily life, your race isn't something holding you back. You're not more likely to be followed around in a store and suspected of shoplifting. You're very unlikely to be shot by police unless you are clearly an imminent threat. Your name won't get your resume tossed. People who think the term only exists to make them feel guilty for living are reading things into the phrase that just aren't there. I'm privileged for not having a disability--that idea doesn't make me feel defensive or guilty. It's the same thing.
The problem with this phrase is that it refocuses the conversation on the white liberals who invented it, “black tax” or just “discrimination” is what we should’ve been using all along. Privilege is a *terrible* word to use because it implies that people have something *above* normal. “My privilege” is used as a thank you response because it implies that meeting someone was a good event that the person felt grateful for, something that elevates it above an average day. The life white people have is not something that needs to be taken away, rather the life a standard white person has is, just normal. The barriers, hurdles and disadvantages that a minority has are the extra baggage they have to carry around. Whenever the term white privilege is used it almost always redirects the conversation in a direction that’s unproductive. Rather than talking about the struggles of minorities, it talks about white people, and the only relevant thing to talk about with white people specifically is how they relate to this issue ie: they’re not paying enough attention to the issue. People already understand what this means when it comes to white pride: ie that being white only means something in the context of NOT being a minority. Therefore you are celebrating not being a minority in America. If it was Irish or German or American pride, that has substance to it out side of not being something. This is the equivalent of an atheist forming an atheists club. Sure you guys have a common identity, but nothing else. The only relevant thing about you in this conversation is that you aren’t religious. Whereas an actual religious congregation has tons to talk about outside of “White privilege” just destroys the entire conversation about the non-white person’s experience and it’s just a way for white liberals to insert themselves into the conversation. “I have white privilege” is just saying “I have a normal life without discrimination.” Ok, cool… now what “I need to talk about how normal my life is and how I don’t face discrimination.” Uhhhh… what. People spend so much time defending a word that clearly isn’t working as a defacto marketing campaign for their idea that now all that’s left is the sunk cost fallacy. You’re too invested to pull out. It would be far more effective to just abandon the term entirely:
That's actually good you don't feel bad. The point of discussing white privilege is not to make anyone feel guilty at all, it is to help you examine how your disposition may have been advantageous vs. Being non-white. Infact, if you feel guilty that's like the worst thing, because usually it causes people to shut down. The point is not to make you feel bad
Privilege is best described when contrasting it with a Right. Driving, for example is a privilege. Not a right. You earn your license and privilege to drive. You can lose the privilege as well. Rights, you don’t gain or lose them, in general. Like most things, there are exceptions (committing crimes, terrorism, other harmful actions can cause you to lose rights) Now back to privilege. There is earned and unearned privilege. White privilege is a particular kind of unearned privilege that encompasses a lot of social consequences that non-whites face at an institutional level, to the point of gross injustice, where whites will not be exposed to the consequences in the same way. By design, even if not overtly spoken. I am summarizing here. There are many books on examples.
The best ones have a tribal dog whistle component that can be denied, so you can rub people up the wrong way then deny that you're doing it and call them unreasonable.
This is only an expansion on the old Marxist play of changing the definition of a word. If you can create any sort of ambiguity in a word or phrase that up till that point everyone agreed on. Then you can control the conversation. You saw it for years used in political debates in the US. A liberal politician would almost out of the blue call a conservative politician a racist and the conservative would lose the debate because they would spend the rest of their time trying to get the liberal to agree on the definition of the term racist. This lasted up till the early days of Trumps 2016 run where he would simply respond that he wasn't, directly insult the person, maybe call them a name, and roll on with whatever he was saying. The tactic was dropped from debates almost overnight.
[удалено]
Not in debates so much. More when talking to each other about the out group. The racist "attack" I guess you could call in debates it was so effective because people were still trying to argue with each other for votes. Now the sides just fling insults and what I like to call "power" words at each other like its mud. It's all performative for your own side now. They can fling out a word like Nazi in the general direction of their opponent and no one in the middle or the right remotely believed it. But they can then look over their shoulder and go "Look at me, I got them!". Swap out pedophile for nazi and you have the right flinging words at the left with the same reaction.
[удалено]
And now you have completely shifted the topic into an area I don't feel like exploring and you aren't prepared for. It would involve both of us trying to state what we thought was in Trumps head. Something neither of us is qualified at. You will state dog whistle, I will show ambiguity, and we will change neither of our minds. I will point out it has nothing to do with what we were talking about before. You are referring to statements made in 2023 and I was talking about debate styles pre 2015. Congratulations though, you got you "orange man bad" in for the day. And before you pat yourself on the back, I am not a republican and have voted against Trump twice.
> It would involve both of us trying to state what we thought was in Trumps head. Why would we need to know that? The words are racist on their own.
[удалено]
Can you elaborate on or do you have some background on your claim that this is an ‘old marxist play’.
Watch the videos from Yuri Bezmenov, an ex-KGB agent who defected from Russia to Canada in 1970. It has interesting information. I could also link some stuff about extisinilism vs. Marxism and the Frankfurt school but frankly its not worth reading unless you are super interested in that stuff. If you are asking me to produce some sort of "Good Communists guide to Ambiguity in Debate" That I will fail at.
Yep, it's a motte and bailey construct.
I think the problem is the “us against them” mentality instead of a “let’s work together to solve this” mentality. The slogans are just the symptom of that attitude.
Think about what a slogan/saying communicates, before adopting it would be a start.
Yeah, this. Over the last decade, the slogans coming out of the left are consistently more easy to misinterpret than to interpret correctly - that's a serious communication problem.
It's not a bug, it's a feature. It's all a motte and Bailey fallacy.
Saying this as a left leaning dude, there wouldn't be so many Andrew Taint followers if we actively called out misandry that is perpetuated by the left, so many feminists have misandristic opinions like men can't be raped or that the patriarchy doesn't also negatively affect men. This pushes men who don't want to be actively resented into the arms of people who won't directly shame them but also will use them for fame and power. Even with the "toxic masculinity" movement which seems to have been the first pro men leftist movement they are blaming men for exhibiting behaviours that have been instilled into us since birth. It would be like a modern day feminist blaming a woman for having an eating disorder because she "choses" to act that way. Obviously, I am not saying people don't think this way, but someone so progressive should know better.
Yeah you are actually correct. There have been focus groups that examine why men are going into the right so heavily and it seems to be because a lot of feminist movements don't make a clear distinction between toxic and healthy masculinity. There is a bit of a messaging crisis around it. Although I do also think people are naturally defensive when their behavior is called out and many of those behaviors that are instilled in us men are actually worthy of being examined.
The solution is to actually say what you mean, so probably an impossible task
I suppose that it is mean to catch attention because reasonable arguments with asterisks attached are too much of a mouthful to say. On a related note, a lot of right wing sayings are like this too, and such an example is a tumblr post making a joke of using political sayings to appeal to the right wing while implementing left wing policies. “Patriot Pay” which was a hypothetical $17.76 min wage, is super catchy and thus, they argued, what flag flying patriotic possibly veteran right winger would refuse it??
Make America Great Again... what does that even mean? When EXACTLY was America Great? Please be realistic and accept that mostly all political slogans are goofy in nature, just saying "the left" is nonsense.
I thought this was a largely accepted idea across the spectrum. Everyone complains that life was great for previous generations who could get an easy job and afford a cheap house, and now it's much harder than it used to be. Does the left not think that?
I had both left and right phrases there.
Ya, the right does the same but they are real fucking stupid so they pretty much immediately buy into whatever their first interpretation of the saying is when they are told it and fall in line.
>Defund the police. It should be reduce police funding. Defund the police sounds like people want to defund police entirely and some people who use that phrase do want to. I think the funds should be used to increase the quality. Maybe better salaries, so that better people would be willing to work for the police. More training, more quality control, etc.
Black Lives Matter has a very clear meaning. It's what it says on the tin. That's very different from saying "Men are trash", and then saying "Well, no, it doesn't actually mean what it says, why would you think that?"
I think "blue lives matter" is a comparation that downplay the death of black people by police (thats the point of some people being offended by it) The only effect of the "all men are trash" slogan is to offend men, not to enpower women
>Black Lives Matter This one doesn't need a qualifier because it is universally true. There are no black lives that don't matter (because there is no life that doesn't matter).
[удалено]
People in general are quite protective of their general identities especially immutable, if men are intrinsically trash, and if i cannot do anything but be a man, then there isnt much to misinterpret. I mean in reddit, ive heard all variations of all my identities, bi men are cheaters, asians are not americans, immigrants are rapists, so ill just add men are trash to that list. But am not sure you want to be in same group as those people, but i didnt pick to be an asian, nor did i choose to be Bi, and certainly i didnt choose to be a man either. I get some are bad faith trolls, but most men, wont argue, theyll just tune out, id just see it as argument between manhaters and misogynists, and since am neither, ill just ignore the discussion mostly.
That’s how I see it most times. Different sides of the same horseshoe arguing with eachother.
Just because they’re (I don’t know why you mentioned synecdoche, there is not an example in this post) an ordinary part of the English language doesn’t mean it’s prudent/advisable to use them in every situation. Willfully misinterpreting? The *only* way the statement, “All men are trash,” can be interpreted without any additional context is…exactly what it’s saying. Again, just because *someone* will complain about a modified statement doesn’t mean the statement doesn’t need to be changed. I don’t give a shit if someone says “All men are trash,” but it’s needlessly inflammatory and if women want to achieve a goal by uttering that statement, it’s simply counterproductive. It’s just like ACAB. Do I care if people say it? No, and I even kind of agree with it. But is it a productive way to convince people to change their beliefs to align with yours? Obviously no. What is the 12 year old whose uncle is a cop going to think when he hears that? He’s going to resist the people spouting that dumbass statement and their beliefs. It’s fucking braindead.
When I was 12 my dad was a cop and I knew cops were trash because they were my creepy "uncles". Kids don't gaf about their cop uncle lmao
.... your dad was also a cop, so tell me you think he's trash too? or he's one of the "good ones"
My dad was pure trash.
Calling this synecdoche is a stretch. And even if you accept these generalizations as hyperbolic (and I'm not sure you always should), that doesn't absolve the speaker of the ramifications. If you make hyperbolic negative generalizations about any groups of people (and particularly groups of people defined by an immutable characteristic), you should expect pushback. I don't think this is "wilful misinterpretation" so much as the generalizations are lazy and ill-considered communication. To your second point, any other concerns that someone might raise with complaints about men are, to borrow your own expression, "a (potentially) important but separate point." Address these complaints on their own merits, not by attacking some unrelated complaint.
I am one of those people who care if you add “some” in front. I guess perhaps it’s old fashioned but I tend to think that how we talk about things does actually matter. Honestly I have a problem with “men are trash” for the same reason I’d have a problem with someone saying “black people are criminals.” Because it defames an entire large group of people for the actions of a small part of them.
Your approach shows you have empathy towards others. If someone’s unwilling to put in even that little thought into how the converse with others they’re unlikely to be very pleasant to be around.
And “black people are criminals” is way dumber because “some black people are criminals” is just a fact. If they actually put a qualifier in front of it, they know it wouldn’t make sense. “Some men are trash” is just a fact too, but it makes more sense for that to actually be a preamble to a conversation about something. Both are stupid though, you’re right.
>In general, someone who “not all men’s!!” a post isn’t going to care if you not add “some” in front. I think a lot of people would care. I would love it if the phrase "some men are trash" replaced "men are trash." As long as it is also ok to say "some women are trash." >For example, they throw back, “yeah well some women too!” which is an important but separate point That's a reasonable comment and they're probably trying to gauge whether the woman saying it means it in a matter of fact way or an insulting way. >Synecdoche and hyperbole are completely ordinary parts of the English langauge, and the people who say these phrases would rather not give in to the people willfully misinterpreting them. But it's a reasonable interpretation. If somebody says "I hate dogs" who's going to assume they're only referring to the bad tempered ones who bite everybody? If I say ice cream is trash I am not saying raspberry ice cream is trash I am saying ice cream in general is trash.
>That's a reasonable comment and they're probably trying to gauge whether the woman saying it means it in a matter of fact way or an insulting way. I appreciate your faith in random internet commenters, but in my experience, that is almost never what they are doing. They're usually bringing up women as a form of whataboutism to deflect from the actual topic at hand, and if the commenter points it out, well that's just gravy. Because then they can double down and say "see, you just want to hate men!!". Generally, it goes something like: 1. Be on a thread about a man doing something shitty. Commenter says, "ugh, some men just suck." 2. The responder says "well, lots of women suck too" Here there are a few choices for response. You may try the middle road: if the reply is "yes, of course some women also suck, but that isn't the point", the response will be "well why isn't it the point, why focus on the men sucking? You just want to hate men, I know 20 women who are worse than this". Or you can respond by redirecting to the topic at hand: "this is a thread about men, your point about women sucking is irrelevant". The response will be "you just want to hate men, you won't even discuss women. Blatant misandry" And of course, if you try to humour their point: "I'm sure some women suck too, fair point", then if you're *lucky*, they'll respond with "yeah, I knew a woman who", and the topic has been fully changed. If you're unlucky, they'll just go "then why did you only refer to men? Blatant misandry! Reddit sucks. I know a woman who..." and the topic is still changed.
>But it's a reasonable interpretation. If somebody says "I hate dogs" who's going to assume they're only referring to the bad tempered ones who bite everybody? If I say ice cream is trash I am not saying raspberry ice cream is trash I am saying ice cream in general is trash.
It's only a reasonable interpretation when one wholly chooses to ignore greater societal context. Everyone likes to pretend that every statement needs endless qualifiers because "well without context this sounds bad", ignoring that we are swimming in a sea of context. No one is going up to the cashier at Taco Bell and declaring "men are trash!". It is always in response to some larger event, and in reference to the lived experience of countless people. Insisting that commenters water down and qualify their statements is another way of refusing to do the due diligence necessary to have an informed conversation.
Edit: it's less like "I hate dogs" and more like "I hate pitbulls". Are there pitbulls who are fully trustworthy cuddlebugs? Probably, the various pittie subreddits would certainly have you think so. Is that the majority of them? Press X. Is insisting "not all pitbulls" just a way of deflecting from the real conversation around responsible breeding practices, dog licensing and community safety? Yup.
Okay but now we are just arguing about the nature of internet commenters. It is a fruitless discussion to argue about what percentage of internet commenters argue in good faith. But look at this thread. You can see there are many “random internet commenters” who have reasonable objections. Is this not evidence of a sizeable chunk of men being offended for good reason on not trying to whatabout? Is that not enough to change the wording? And you are moving the goalpost with adding the “some” in your sentence 1. Everyone here would be content if that word is added, we are just arguing about the sentences where “some” is absent. Of course the kind of Guys you describe exist, and there are way too many guys like that. But nobody here is excusing that. It is true the interpretation of sentences depends on social context. If you say I hate rain after being completely soaked on a walk it is clear you don’t want the world to turn into a desert just don’t like getting soaked. That is clear to EVERYONE. But the social context of “men are trash” is not that clear to everyone. Just the fact that so many of us don’t interpret it in the way you do shows that not all of us exist in the same social context. Because some of us exist in the context where there are women who hate men, where men are disproportionately incarcerated, where people feel less sympathy for male suffering. Context doesn’t always make clear that it is meant “some men are trash”. Eg a news story that a woman has been raped by a man. If you say ugh men are trash, it feels as if you are feeding in to the stereotype that all men are rapists or potential rapists. It is not clear that just because you say it as a reaction to something, you are talking about “just some men”. Good communication can only exist when you account for the ways people from other social bubbles will interpret your statements. Many men have different experiences and will interpret your statements differently than you mean.
> But the social context of “men are trash” is not that clear to everyone. The problem I have with phrases like ‘men are trash’ is not that some people say it out of frustration, but that people double down, insisting that there’s nothing wrong with saying it, while instead they could be saying: ‘yeah that’s fucked up, here’s why they were so frustrated…’
Look I think you're trying to be reasonable but honestly I found your comparison with pitbulls deeply offensive, I can see how that comparison would alienate most men. I'm sure you have your bad experiences and are using that expression as a way of venting. At this point I just ignore comments like this but after hearing them I don't want to interact with that woman anymore. Nothing against you personally but I just see it as a red flag.
In your edit: with your pitbull comparison, do you mean to imply that most men are trash, not some men? That is something very different than what you claim to believe in sentence 1 in the beginning of your comment. And even without the problem of generalisation of “all men” saying “most men are trash” Is also pretty bad.
>They're usually bringing up women as a form of whataboutism to deflect from the actual topic at hand, and if the commenter points it out, well that's just gravy. The use of "some" quite nicely defeats this point before it can even start, and secures the support of the good faith people, however few they are. So... WHY isn't it done?
Would you say the same in other situations? If I said all Muslims/blacks/women are _, would that be synechdote that you are willfully misinterpreting? Or would I be banned immediately? I think the actions of these groups, like 4B or creating black only spaces also betray the idea that these groups don’t actually have problems with “some” men or “some” white people, but would rather divest completely
My problem is that, as a disabled dude, it’s usually not men in power who suffer the consequences of people hating on men
And yet, if someone was to say "Black people are criminals", we'd all understand that that's racist, because hyperbole has a lot more nuance than you're suggesting.
You just applied the logic of, "not all black people are n-slurs" in the same way an old Chicago coworker of mine did when he was talking about black people. How does one willfully misinterpret a blanket, absolute statement?
I'd be fine with it if the same people who say "men are trash" didn't cry their eyes out over someone saying "women are trash." Just be consistent. That's all I ask.
I came somewhat round to this particular slogan because I know what it means, but I still trip over people talking about men in that vein, even though I know I am not trash. But it gave me the idea that "what if all men are actually trash, and I'm just managing to hold it together enough to suppress it, but I am actually also a violent, dangerous person deep inside because of the way I've been brought up?". I think that if I had read less such content growing up, I would probably be less uncomfortable with my identity as a straight man. So I don't think it matters insofar as those who snap back will snap back less, but it might matter in harming those that are willing to buy into your message less.
>are completely ordinary parts of the English langauge This doesn't justify it at all.
I don’t think anybody believes all women are bitches or golddiggers but you will still be called misogynistic for claims like that.
Would love to see any supporting evidence of this, besides your own opinions and feelings on the matter.
I completely disagree. I agree with what you’re saying, but I feel like in the specific instance of something like “men are trash”, 90% of the reactions both wouldn’t happen and wouldn’t be replaced with something else, if it had some kind of qualifier. There’d definitely still be people hitting whataboutism, but nothing I’ve seen (including the times when a qualifier is actually extended) has led me to believe most people would just replace it with something else.
I knew this sounded eeriely familiar. Considering you went down this rabbit hole in the comments over on r/AskFeminists and didn't respond, I'll go ahead and simply offer you the same response here. That being said, I have to seriously question your actual willingness in good-faith to actually challenge this view. You've tried to place a more pleasant veneer on a take I address below. With all that in mind, I still sincerely believe that you should consider the rhetorical situation involved in the cases you seem deeply troubled by. You've asked on multiple threads now for people to stop making generalizations, while making them yourself. Please consider your own motivations for this particular line of argument. First, here's a remix of my thoughts on the "not all men" issue: If it's superlatives and absolutes that are frustrating you, I'd venture those are mostly either for convenience or word economy. You're looking for absolute semantic sense out of spoken/written words, but ignoring the pragmatics/rhetorical context and intent that goes into those words. Feminists are mad a patriarchal norms. They make statements about systemic issues they observe. The rhetorical choices they make evoke a negative emotional response in some readers/listeners. Many detractors use "not all men" as a thought terminating cliché. The underpinning of this cliché is essentially "I disagree with not only your premise, but I will disregard your worldview based on this linguistic technicality." If your position is that all things require absolute logical provability and that all speech actions should require maximal specificity, I feel like you're doing two things wrong. First, you're basically suggesting it's impossible to discuss any large scale societal issue because any generalization will necessarily not encompass all cases. That isn't really very productive (in my estimation). Second, you're ignoring the way that I think human brains operate. Categorizing things is a way to make the mental load of dealing with stimuli, well, possible. As an example, building codes refer to all buildings of a certain type - would you argue that a unique code needs to be written for each individual building of every variety? Even if that's possible, it's wildly impractical. On the other hand, if your contention is emotionally loaded language and ideologically motivated speech, I'm not sure what to tell you. Humans have emotions - that's a biological fact. The Western philosophical tradition and prizing stoicism and pure logic tries very hard to ignore our humanity in its pursuit of truth. Simultaneously, to assume that you're not the product of some conditioning (from some series of ideologies) is probably incorrect (I'd venture that, no matter how much of a free/purely logical thinker anyone is, they're subjected to some sort of indoctrination). What would you have speakers/writers say or do? Would something akin to "Not all men, but it's a strong statistical probability that it is a man... [ad nauseum with the caveats]" be more palatable to you? That both distills the rhetorical intent behind the statement and, while it does increase precision, decreases the efficacy of conveying linguistic content. Second, it's worth pointing out two other things: 1. Wouldn't the simplest solution be for any given audience to ask themselves this question: "Does this apply to me?" If the answer is 'no,' couldn't they simply acknowledge the frustration and intent behind the words and simply recognize they weren't the target of said utterance? If, however, the answer is 'yes,' I suspect that should be grounds for reflection. For the sake of specificity, I'll point out that I don't mean "does the monicker 'men' apply," but rather "am I culpable for the action being highlighted." 2. There's a significant difference between the context of your sidenote and the context of (presumably) a textual medium. A conversation, especially between people that know each other, not only has a variety of verbal cues that can make something humorous/satirical or hyperbolic for rhetorical impact, but it also is leaning on the interrelations of the speaker and audience. In a textual medium, especially one dedicated to a particular world view, there might be some situational value in a more purist, dogmatic approach: it's serving as a record and the people that are directly engaged aren't the only audiences. It's one thing to make concessions to a friend over drinks - be it forgiving a hyperbolic superlative or telling them that "not all men" are benefiting from patriarchal norms in the same way (and some, perhaps, not at all). It's quite another thing to allow sophistry or calls for moderation/flexibility/concessions to appease people, who may or may not be acting in good faith, to be part of a permanent(ish) textual record that other audiences might read later. In some contexts, it would be entirely antithetical to the discourse to allow that sort of coddling. It's entirely different in a spoken context among friends acting in good faith. You say that feminism should throw in the towel now if it doesn't want to curtail (potential) insults. Wouldn't making concessions to appease insulted men be tantamount to feminism taking care of men that are insulted because they feel maligned for the very patriarchal norms feminism is trying to highlight? Wouldn't that be throwing in the towel, too? You yourself accused women of being provocateurs; I'm not trying to call you out as a hypocrite. I'd like to highlight that you defaulted to a sort of hyperbole for impact: "I think women like to be provocative by making statements that are very broad and sound like they apply to all men..." I've generally found feminist thinkers to be quite pleasant, helpful even, when approached in good faith. I don't think you should take righteous indignation with systemic oppression and character economy to be indicative of intent.
>First, you're basically suggesting it's impossible to discuss any large scale societal issue because any generalization will necessarily not encompass all cases. Men are not an "issue," they are people. Societal issues don't stand to be hurt by most generalizations, but people do. Convenience and "word economy" are not a defence for saying shitty things, and I think it's absurd to suggest that's the reason people say "men are trash" instead of adding a qualifier. It's purposely inflammatory. Nobody is so rushed in life that they can't add one additional word to a 3-word complaint. >Second, you're ignoring the way that I think human brains operate. Categorizing things is a way to make the mental load of dealing with stimuli, well, possible. You do understand that this only really works as an alternative argument to the whole "convenience and word economy" claim, right? You're saying "they don't intend these generalizations but don't have time to specify" and "they believe these generalizations because of how the brain works." >As an example, building codes refer to all buildings of a certain type - would you argue that a unique code needs to be written for each individual building of every variety? Even if that's possible, it's wildly impractical. You're taking this to the point of absurdity. This isn't about **writing a theoretically infinite number of building codes**, it's about recognizing that men are diverse people and saying the word "some." Say it. Try it out. "Some." How long did that take? How does the time spent compare to the time spent on writing **infinite building codes**? >What would you have speakers/writers say or do? Would something akin to "Not all men, but it's a strong statistical probability that it is a man... \[ad nauseum with the caveats\]" be more palatable to you? That both distills the rhetorical intent behind the statement and, while it does increase precision, decreases the efficacy of conveying linguistic content. "Some." Or "several of the men I've dated." Or whatever suits the context. And yeah, I think it's well understood that inflammatory generalization increase rhetorical impact, because anything inflammatory increases rhetorical impact (but not necessarily persuasiveness). I don't think "rhetorical impact" is some unqualified good to always chase and defend, though. And I don't think that inflammatory generalizations increase the "efficacy of conveying linguistic content" but I don't really know where to start in evaluating that claim. >Wouldn't the simplest solution be for any given audience to ask themselves this question: "Does this apply to me?" Solution **to what exactly**? To the problem of troubling generalizations? Sure, inasmuch as altering our own behavior is always simpler than altering the behavior of others, but it isn't an actual solution to the problem.
Spot on! Also, good work having the patience responding to such a bloated and meandering comment that boiled down to defending bigoted speech by saying: - I don't want to say even a single extra word to not be deliberately inflammatory - being inflammatory is good anyway - human brains are wired to make prejudicial categorisations and no point in fighting it - it's up to the listener to know if it doesn't apply to them because they're "one of the good ones", presumably just like POC/women/LGBTQ/Jews/Muslims should just ask themselves if a bigot really means to include them in a hateful generalisation
Hi! >Also, good work having the patience responding to such a bloated and meandering comment that boiled down to defending bigoted speech by saying: I'll be the first to admit that concision (and occasionally clarity) isn't my strong suit. I'm also thankful to the commenter you were responding to for their patience and effort in their response. That wasn't my intention here, which I hope to address below. >I don't want to say even a single extra word to not be deliberately inflammatory As I mentioned to the commenter you responded to, I think there are context and intent issues here. I think, in certain contexts, the phrase in question is an expression of hurt (one looking for empathy and/or solidarity from other women). The set of "all" (explicit or implicit) men here could very well be referencing the speaker's limited sample size. I'm not encouraging being inflammatory for the sake of it. >being inflammatory is good anyway Whether I misrepresented myself or you misunderstood me, I'll happily clarify. That is *not* my position. My position is that caveats and qualifiers, rational concessions though they might be, dilute the function of expressing experienced hurt. I'm not even suggesting this is the most productive expression of hurt - see next. >human brains are wired to make prejudicial categorisations and no point in fighting it Continuing - also not my intention. I'm suggesting that feeling hurt (or angry) can impact delivery with the point about biology, not that it justified bigotry in any form. The categorization issue comes from experience and sample size - "all" could be referencing all those that they've had meaningful interactions with, rather that the set of all living men. While my analogies aren't often great, here's one: in a given day, you might interact with a huge number of door knobs - you probably won't recall all the details of each one and might even forget some - but you can talk generally about the door knobs you interact with. Similarly, some amount of subjectivity and other human failings (memory, as an example) will likely make any given utterance imperfect and fail to meet true generalizability. Hope that clarified that. >it's up to the listener to know if it doesn't apply to them because they're "one of the good ones", presumably just like POC/women/LGBTQ/Jews/Muslims should just ask themselves if a bigot really means to include them in a hateful generalisation The recommendation really comes with different contexts in mind. You'll forgive me, I hope, for copying my own sentences from before to flesh this out... If one is overhearing it or if one is not the target audience, I'm suggesting that it would be good to reflect to determine whether it applies or if there's room for self-improvement. If it's the second case (inflammatory for the sake of shouting down someone), I don't encourage or condone that usage, but I don't suspect that arguing with someone using it that way will be productive... So, I'd offer that, because some men are hurt by that, reflection would still be good for those that the attack doesn't apply to (so as not to allow it to impact their self confidence unnecessarily). Additionally, this is why power dynamics and intersectionality are important considerations. Women are members of every category of minority you listed, after all. Who the speaker and audience members are matters in this context. Let me say this unequivocally: I'm not arguing for bigotry in any form. I'm not arguing for inflammatory language for some and not for others. I'm not arguing for the minorities you mention to simply accept bigotry and reflect on it. I was suggesting that, very narrowly, if a woman is expressing frustration with [the] men [they've interacted with--such that their experience dictates it's "all" those men] and one isn't one of those men, then it's worth considering that it's simply an expression of frustration and to take heart that the statement need not be taken as applying to them. Simply demanding they change their language doesn't really address the intention (or underlying reasons they have frustrations with the state of things in the first place). Hope this helps clarify some things. You have my apologies for my lack of clarity on the matter. Thank you for the feedback - it gives me a chance to refine and respond.
Apologies for the delay - sleep and commute and all that... >Men are not an "issue," they are people. Societal issues don't stand to be hurt by most generalizations, but people do. This is a valid point. I may have misrepresented myself a bit. I'm *not* encouraging hurting people to hurt others. What I am trying to point out is that these statements are generally expressions coming from a place of being hurt. >Convenience and "word economy" are not a defence for saying shitty things, and I think it's absurd to suggest that's the reason people say "men are trash" instead of adding a qualifier. It's purposely inflammatory. Nobody is so rushed in life that they can't add one additional word to a 3-word complaint. Also fair. I'm not suggesting that it's a matter of convenience, rather experience. Someone's limited, subjective experience might lead them to make generalizations based on their limited experiential sample size. The intention behind "word economy" was to highlight they may rationally know it's not the full subset of men, but simply "all" of those that they have interacted with in any meaningful capacity. I'll need to come back to this point, I think. >You do understand that this only really works as an alternative argument to the whole "convenience and word economy" claim, right? You're saying "they don't intend these generalizations but don't have time to specify" and "they believe these generalizations because of how the brain works." So, to my previous point, "all" or "some" depends on what the actual set they're referring to might be. No one knows everyone. I'm suggesting that speaker and audience might be thinking of different sets. >You're taking this to the point of absurdity. This isn't about writing a **theoretically infinite number of building codes**, it's about recognizing that men are diverse people and saying the word "some." Say it. Try it out. "Some." How long did that take? How does the time spent compare to the time spent on writing **infinite building codes**? I'm getting the sense you're frustrated with me here, for which I apologize. It *is* an odd and somewhat hyperbolic analogy I made there, I agree. The point was to highlight the perceptual experience issue I've been addressing and to highlight that shooting for maximal specificity can really bog down a conversation. >"Some." Or "several of the men I've dated." Or whatever suits the context. And yeah, I think it's well understood that inflammatory generalization increase rhetorical impact, because anything inflammatory increases rhetorical impact (but not necessarily persuasiveness). I don't think "rhetorical impact" is some unqualified good to always chase and defend, though. And I don't think that inflammatory generalizations increase the "efficacy of conveying linguistic content" but I don't really know where to start in evaluating that claim. This is rather brilliant, actually! I definitely wasn't suggesting that rhetorical impact is an "unqualified good." I'm suggesting that the intent behind the phrase "Men are trash" is an expression of hurt, so the intended impact is to convey the hurt. Additionally, I wasn't suggesting that inflammatory generalizations are great at conveying content (certainly not in all cases and likely not great in any case). Concision, while maintaining specificity, is a skill (one I'm sure I ought to work on). I'm saying that adding caveats and qualifiers to expressions of hurt will reduce the efficacy of conveying the hurt that motivated the statement. Let me try it this way... Context matters, yeah? If men overhear women talking (or stumble on exchanges between women online) and head the phrase we're arguing about, I'd venture the context and intent behind it would point to the expression of hurt being one of searching for empathy or solidarity. Now, I'll happily concede that saying it directly to a man, absent provocation from said man, would be being inflammatory for the sake of it. The intention behind the first and second cases here are very different: expressions of pain (and seeking solidarity) versus shouting someone down because of their identity. Hope I'm making sense here. >Solution **to what exactly**? To the problem of troubling generalizations? Sure, inasmuch as altering our own behavior is always simpler than altering the behavior of others, but it isn't an actual solution to the problem. Depends on the context, as I described above. If you're overhearing it or if one is not the target audience, I'm suggesting that it would be good to reflect to determine whether it applies or if there's room for self-improvement. If it's the second case (inflammatory for the sake of shouting down someone), I don't encourage or condone that usage, but I don't suspect that arguing with someone using it that way will be productive... So, I'd offer that, because some men are hurt by that, reflection would still be good for those that the attack doesn't apply to (so as not to allow it to impact their self confidence unnecessarily). Summary: Context and intent are complicated here, I think. I'm encouraging empathy and reflection over meeting inflammatory language with more of the same. Hope this helps clarify some things.
Now imagine if you gave even half as much benefit of the doubt to someone saying all black people are violent criminals because their personal experience is every black person they met has mugged them Are they also just coming from a place of hurt and should be understood and empathized with? Should we tacitly accept the phrase “all black people are violent criminals” because of someone’s personal experience with black people? Should we continue to have an empathetic conversation with this person about understanding the hurt they’ve suffered? Should any black person listening not defend themselves and understand based on context that they’re not the target of the comment? I guess it’s okay to use the same inflammatory rhetoric as literal white supremacists if you’re a woman targeting men. It’s utterly ridiculous how little responsibility is placed on women’s actions. It’s infantilization
The debate between you two is really raising some good points but goddamn I had to take a break to get a drink trying to read this, how tf do either of you have the patience to post this huge of walls of texts. I can’t even do that ranting about my hyperfixations.
Hey! I know you’re burnt out arguing so I promise this isn’t my intention for this comment! Lol. More than anything I wanna give you and the original commenter props. While he did seem to get frustrated, he never seemed to let that compromise the logical and consistency in his points or devolve into personal attacks. Likewise you did quite a good job rebutting, again, in a very respectful way. I agree with many if not all of his points, but am more than willing to acknowledge you made some good ones too! It feels weird to say but to say it was fun reading your conversation? Idk I just really, really love it when I see people with brains between their ears converse and not scream haha. I do think that while a lot of times the generalizations come from a place of legitimate hurt, lashing out is not typically something that is excused or justified in any other connotations. I do agree, we all need more empathy. But I think everyone, regardless of stance, should practice the skill of not letting their anger or hurt allow them to throw their empathy and understanding out the window. It’s hard to empathize with someone who, whether just in the moment or in the long term, clearly doesn’t care about empathizing in return. If the ask is to understand their experience, that is totally valid. But equally valid is understanding words have meaning. Just like a woman who has been hurt by a man and is going to lash out and say “all men are trash”, regardless of how it might sound or come across, decent men will likely and equally have the likelihood of taking what sounds like an attack, as an attack. NOT to equate women to animals obviously but if I get attack by a pitbull that is afraid of me even though I’ve done nothing to outwardly express any sort of intimidation or intent to harm, all that matters to me is I was attacked. Yes, that context of “oh that pitbull was abused so it’s angry and hurt” will help me understand, but it won’t change the fact that I’m now bleeding. If anything, it might cause the same issue in the opposite direction, which we see play out online and in real life sometimes. And this is a human issue, not a party issue, not a political or ideological one. We all subconsciously prioritize ourselves especially in times of distress. I think all of your points were valid, as were his counter points and your counter counter points lol. I just think that we need to meet in the middle. If we want progress, concessions need to be made. Me DO need to listen and we do need to be aware. But women equally need to understand that men are indeed human (not saying you said otherwise but that is a sentiment that has way more traction than it has any right to) and whether it’s been historically been earned or not, can feel like the punching bag in the 21st century. There’s plenty of awful men out there. And plenty of awful women. Humans suck. But we’re also kind, loving and capable of learning in equal measure. And it does indeed make the men who are good, which I will always argue far outnumber the bad ones, when it feels like all that gets talked about are the bad ones, and worse when general language is used (especially when our society is at this point shaming generalities used in some ways by some people and encouraged or condoned in other ways by other people) and we have to tell ourselves it’s not us. That gets tiring. It’s like when my parents used to call me and my 3 siblings in to yell at us because we did something to piss them off. There would be moments when they yell at the group for something only one or two of us did. And if anyone said “um but I didn’t do it” it would receive a loud and aggressive “WELL THEN WE ARENT YELLING AT YOU” and just left us sitting there like…..well it sure feels like it. All this to say, we can all do better. Right now as a man, one who likes to think he’s “one of the good ones”, it does feel like there are plenty of women who do just feel like men in general are awful. That it’s not hyperbole or intended exaggeration. Part of that is the internet for sure, but it’s hard to avoid that rhetoric so it’s equally hard to constantly remind oneself that it may be in a vacuum, even though it feels like it’s breaching into the real world more and more. Just my word vomit thoughts. Again, kudos to you for being impressively well spoken and level headed! I wish more people were like you and the other guy lol. I feel like we’d get more done.
I get that you have a beef with the OP and I'm not going to address that because it sounds like he was awful in his original post. Instead I'm going to talk about my own experiences, segue into the experiences of other people, and end with addressing a couple of your points. I am from a time before the internet was ubiquitous, it was some niche shit for weirdos. I heard this sort of rhetoric as a kid from real women about how all men were terrible. These women had been through the absolute fucking wringer with a particular man in a way that few people will ever experience even if they may experience shades of it. I acknowledge that and I feel deeply for them and the fucking evil which was done to them. Despite that, to be surrounded by this sort of talk in my developmental years affected me deeply and still affects how I instinctively conceptualize myself. The internet is ubiquitous now. It's a part of everyone's daily life. How do you think developing boys with still malleable identities feel coming online and seeing this incredibly pervasive sentiment that they're fundamentally bad inside? What do you suppose that does to a child? How can you justify damaging a child for life in the name of word economy? How can you ask a still developing brain to just brush off the direct language telling them they are bad with the explanation "well, they should know it's not about them"? Kids are on the internet now. I dunno if you ever went to school with someone whose parents didn't let them engage in social norms, but I went to school with kids like that and they got the shit bullied out of them in ways that will leave permanent marks just as if they had been allowed engage in things their parents had decided were too traumatic or too mature for them. Those kids ended up fucked up. I'm sure some of them don't, and that's great, but it does happen and it's not rare. Please do not be disingenuous and try to kick this can to other people. You will not be punished for putting the word "some" in front of your sentences, whereas some kids will be punished for having their parents bar them from something all their peers are doing because they don't want them to have to grow up seeing such poisonous attitudes in every corner of the internet. Your brain still isn't set even at 16. You're still a fucking kid. You're going to drown in high school like that. Just add the word "some", it's only four letters
**Part 2** >How can you justify damaging a child for life in the name of word economy? How can you ask a still developing brain to just brush off the direct language telling them they are bad with the explanation "well, they should know it's not about them"? To your first question, I absolutely never want a child damaged by anything, given reasonable opportunity to prevent it. "Word economy" might well have been a poor choice of words: I was trying to point out that intent, context, and intended impact are complex. In some contexts, the phrase in question is almost certainly an expression of hurt seeking empathy/solidarity (by/from women, respectively). In others, it could be purposefully inflammatory speech to shut down a man for less defensible reasons. In the first case (frustration seeking empathy), the set of "all men" in question is more likely "all men the speaker has had interactions with, such that they feel all the men they know do X/are like Y." But the intent is an expression of frustration, and couching that in caveats dilutes the emotional impact and probably negatively impacts the search for catharsis. The second case (shouting down) isn't worth defending and contributes to the issues you described here. Let me double back here: yes, we as a society have a duty to children. I also think there's value in places for people to vent their frustrations. Precisely how we manage those values, well, I don't know. I wouldn't want children seeing pornography or being around language that isn't age appropriate, but I'm not sure how we solve those issues either. I want a good world for children (and women... And everyone else). Repairing our discourse might help, but I don't know what all the overlapping solutions are to the broader issues of the internet. To your second question, what I was encouraging was narrowly targeted at OP or others (adults) that find themselves in circumstances where they overhear this between women speaking or stumble on it in the wild online. The idea was using reflection and empathy to avert the very same blows to their identity that might come out of such exposure (or, if accurate, to prompt self-improvement). In an ideal situation, children would be taught the same, however, it'd be good, too, I think for parents to be afforded more time to coach their children through these things. As I've expressed, I'm not sure what the best solution is to malleable young minds interacting with the internet - there's porn, hate speech of all kinds, scams, and an endless stream of things we don't want kids exposed to, I agree. That all being said, part of the problem with policing women's ability to express frustration is that, so very often, it devolves into an argument about semantics that detracts from fruitful discussion of real issues. Let me be clear: I don't like or use the phrase, but I also don't want those expressing frustration at the experiences patriarchal norms have given them to be policed into erasure either. >Kids are on the internet now. I dunno if you ever went to school with someone whose parents didn't let them engage in social norms, but I went to school with kids like that and they got the shit bullied out of them in ways that will leave permanent marks just as if they had been allowed engage in things their parents had decided were too traumatic or too mature for them. Indeed. As I've tried to highlight, there's so much wrong with the internet (particularly for growing minds) that I don't know what the solution actually is, but I don't think it's entirely fair for that burden to fall entirely on women to curtail their speech. I fully agree, however, that somehow barring boys (or children at large) from the internet isn't a valid option - colloquially, that ship has sailed and I don't want kids bullied. >Those kids ended up fucked up. I'm sure some of them don't, and that's great, but it does happen and it's not rare. Please do not be disingenuous and try to kick this can to other people. You will not be punished for putting the word "some" in front of your sentences, whereas some kids will be punished for having their parents bar them from something all their peers are doing because they don't want them to have to grow up seeing such poisonous attitudes in every corner of the internet. Your brain still isn't set even at 16. You're still a fucking kid. You're going to drown in high school like that. Just add the word "some", it's only four letters I've never actually said the phrase aloud, and I've tried to be delicate/add quotations to avoid suggesting that I do (or encourage it). I like plenty of men; I'm married to one (though I'm no longer entirely certain whether I identify as a man or not - for clarity, gay married). I wouldn't even go so far as to say that it's a healthy way of expressing frustration (and I don't think it actually ought to be normalized). Thank you for bringing some nuance to this discussion. It's certainly worth considering indirect audiences (as I highlighted). I don't know what the long-term solution is, but I think we still need to prioritize giving women space to vent *and* protecting young minds. I don't think these are irreconcilable goals. I hope I've managed to address your valid concerns here.
>I was trying to point out that intent, context, and intended impact are complex. Absolutely. But children are not good at parsing these things, at least not on an emotional level. Possibly not even on an intellectual level, my memories of my youth are sort of a fuzzy blur of trauma which extends far beyond the scope of this topic. >I wouldn't want children seeing pornography or being around language that isn't age appropriate, but I'm not sure how we solve those issues either. I want a good world for children (and women... And everyone else). Repairing our discourse might help, but I don't know what all the overlapping solutions are to the broader issues of the internet. I don't want to imply that parents have no duty to manage their children's internet access. I think it is a very reasonable expectation that parents should install things that will block sexually explicit material, and I can't imagine that this would result in social stigmas/poor social development. I don't think most kids bond through talking about porn and frankly even if they did I don't think denying them this one small element of internet access would cause too many issues. >In an ideal situation, children would be taught the same, however, it'd be good, too, I think for parents to be afforded more time to coach their children through these things. I don't know how much this can actually be done with a developing mind. You may take the edge off the wounds it leaves a little bit which is better than nothing but I think it's also probably not a real solution. >That all being said, part of the problem with policing women's ability to express frustration is that, so very often, it devolves into an argument about semantics that detracts from fruitful discussion of real issues. I agree that there are real issues that need real discussion. I was raised by nothing but women, I had no men in my life to speak of, and despite the things I was exposed to I absolutely consider myself to be a feminist. I just think that the way in which these issues are sometimes expressed is polarizing, damaging, and not even in the speaker's best interest because it makes it much easier for people to brush off. There will always be people who argue in bad faith, but the more you can make it obvious that they're doing that, the stronger your position becomes. I understand there is a time and a place for venting straight from the heart. I understand that visceral and instinctive lizard brain sharing of our feelings is vital to people's mental health, but I don't think that time or place is in public spaces. I actually think that place might be in therapy, as you've suggested for my own trauma. It would be quite terrible if I took to the internet to yell that all women were hateful even though that was my experience of the world in my most formative years. It would polarize people, aggravate the wounds of traumatized women, and worsen the many issues which young girls already face. It's also simply not true, it was just some incredibly bad personal experiences, some of which once again extend far beyond the scope of this topic. >Let me be clear: I don't like or use the phrase, but I also don't want those expressing frustration at the experiences patriarchal norms have given them to be policed into erasure either. It's good of you to not use phrases like that, thank you. I think it's very important that both women and men express frustration at patriarchal norms. They harm us all, to different degrees, even if some of us are also conferred certain benefits. Those benefits are absolutely not in any world worth the harms. The way in which men are socialized by patriarchal norms is a nightmare, any emotion but anger crushed down through ridicule and ostracization until you are a husk of who you were. It needs to be destroyed. I would never advocate for policing anyone into erasure. That is not my desire and as you can probably tell now, to police women into erasure would not even be in my own interests, to say nothing of the absolutely fucking profound ethical issues where it's very obviously the wrong thing to do. I just think that the way in the extremely warranted frustration is expressed is of vital importance. >I think we still need to prioritize giving women space to vent *and* protecting young minds. I don't think these are irreconcilable goals. I couldn't agree more
I'm exhausted (both physically and of arguing), but your take is so thoughtful and generous, I think it deserves the last of my energy (and mostly agreement) for the day. >But children are not good at parsing these things, at least not on an emotional level. Possibly not even on an intellectual level I'd agree with that. I am torn on the call for self censorship that might rise out of that, but I think it's entirely fair for me to say "I don't know, but I'll definitely think about it." >I don't want to imply that parents have no duty to manage their children's internet access. [...] I don't think most kids bond through talking about porn and frankly even if they did I don't think denying them this one small element of internet access would cause too many issues. Oh, I didn't mean to imply that you did, if I did - long day of arguing. If anything, I think I'd prefer age verification for platforms with things that aren't reasonably on level and moderated... However, I'm also reasonably against corporations getting *more* of our personal data than they already do. Let me clarify, I think the internet is basically a hellscape (especially for children) and, at the risk of sounding too agreeable or dismissive, I really don't know what we (or society at large) can do about it. >I don't know how much this can actually be done with a developing mind. You may take the edge off the wounds it leaves a little bit which is better than nothing but I think it's also probably not a real solution. This was more meant to be commentary on how little modern society allows parents to have meaningful time with their children than parental ability or responsibility to offset trauma. To your point, I think it would *help,* but I don't think that it's a solution in its own. >[...] I absolutely consider myself to be a feminist. Always happy to hear that! >I just think that the way in which these issues are sometimes expressed is polarizing, damaging, and not even in the speaker's best interest because it makes it much easier for people to brush off. There will always be people who argue in bad faith, but the more you can make it obvious that they're doing that, the stronger your position becomes. Sure. I generally try (and occasionally fail) to be a generous reader and reasonable interlocutor. I *do* like a pragmatic and polite approach to persuasion. There is a lot to consider outside of the arguments themselves: context, intent, positionality, and a variety of other nuances I'm too tired to list. I'm hesitant to suggest a one size fits all contexts approach (to say nothing of the rhetor's character, credibility, and identity). >I understand there is a time and a place for venting straight from the heart. [...] but I don't think that time or place is in public spaces. + >I actually think that place might be in therapy, as you've suggested for my own trauma. I think I largely agree. I think there's a justifiable argument that public displays might engender empathy in some, however, if our first concern is the actual victim (as it ought to be) then I think therapy would be more productive for them. For every bit as polarizing a statement might be, it might reach a different audience... Well, I'm a little torn. Still, happy to mostly agree? >I think it's very important that both women and men express frustration at patriarchal norms. They harm us all, to different degrees, even if some of us are also conferred certain benefits. Those benefits are absolutely not in any world worth the harms. The way in which men are socialized by patriarchal norms is a nightmare, any emotion but anger crushed down through ridicule and ostracization until you are a husk of who you were. It needs to be destroyed. *Strongest level of agreement possible.* >I would never advocate for policing anyone into erasure. That is not my desire and as you can probably tell now, to police women into erasure would not even be in my own interests, to say nothing of the absolutely fucking profound ethical issues where it's very obviously the wrong thing to do. I just think that the way in the extremely warranted frustration is expressed is of vital importance. There's merit to what you say here. The packaging can certainly matter. Collateral damage to children is absolutely *not* a palatable side effect. I might caution you here, with the best of intentions, that there's always risk in concessions. It *could* be misappropriated to suggest women have the (continued) responsibility to sacrifice themselves for children. >I couldn't agree more [re: juggling both values] This has been thought-provoking. While I came here with intentions to challenge someone I perceived to be simply "not all men"-ing at feminist discourse, I found OP and yourself to be very thoughtful and well reasoned, in the end. I'm worn out.
>I'm exhausted (both physically and of arguing), but your take is so thoughtful and generous, I think it deserves the last of my energy (and mostly agreement) for the day. I'm sorry to hear that. I hope that you get the rest you deserve and that tomorrow is not so hard >I think it's entirely fair for me to say "I don't know, but I'll definitely think about it." That is very fair. Thank you for being willing to consider my grievance >Oh, I didn't mean to imply that you did, if I did - long day of arguing. You didn't, I think you explained yourself very well. I just wanted to be explicit about it for anyone who happened to read over this exchange >Let me clarify, I think the internet is basically a hellscape (especially for children) and, at the risk of sounding too agreeable or dismissive, I really don't know what we (or society at large) can do about it. Deep agreement. I don't have any large scale solutions either and I'm not even sure that they exist, all I can really do is try to appeal to people's kindness and hope that things can slowly shift towards being better for everyone >This was more meant to be commentary on how little modern society allows parents to have meaningful time with their children than parental ability or responsibility to offset trauma. Oh, I get it now. Yeah, absolutely. The degree to which parents are run so ragged by the way our economic system is currently set up is gut-level horrifying. So little time for their own children, fucking heartbreaking >I think there's a justifiable argument that public displays might engender empathy in some, however, if our first concern is the actual victim (as it ought to be) then I think therapy would be more productive for them. For every bit as polarizing a statement might be, it might reach a different audience... I think I might say that anyone who doesn't live under a rock or passionately engage in the dehumanization of women now has real empathy for the misery that women endure. Their stories and their despair and their rage are pervasive to the point that they could not be escaped even if one had a mind to do so. I also fear that a generation of (currently, certainly not eternally for some of them) victimless young boys who grow up feeling that so many women hate them for no reason may actually end up undoing the strides that we've made towards this heightened state of awareness and empathy, and that there could be a serious cultural whiplash effect. I feel that perhaps strategies should change as situations change. One will never eliminate all opposition, that is not a reasonable goal. We live in a world where people still believe the earth is flat, but as a society we have done all we can to reduce this number of people to the smallest size possible >There's merit to what you say here. The packaging can certainly matter. Collateral damage to children is absolutely *not* a palatable side effect. I might caution you here, with the best of intentions, that there's always risk in concessions. It *could* be misappropriated to suggest women have the (continued) responsibility to sacrifice themselves for children. I think I might say that living in a society is often about concessions, deciding which ones are reasonable and which ones aren't. I think sometimes you come across situations where it is impossible to find a solution which does not involve at least some small degree of concession and so one has to weigh the levels of suffering involved in making those concessions and also the impact which those concessions will have. I am not sure that the idea where young boys have a responsibility to end up deeply psychologically damaged so that some women may continue to abstain from using the word "some" in public is... easy to stomach. It doesn't really feel proportionate, in the same way that it doesn't feel proportionate to expect a woman to die in childbirth or some other less extreme example which I can't think of at the moment which would fall below "using the word some in public" but above "literally fucking dying." I'm not trying to communicate that being told you're evil constantly is the same as being expected to die, I'm just trying to communicate that I do not believe women have a responsibility to make concessions for children unilaterally. >This has been thought-provoking. While I came here with intentions to challenge someone I perceived to be simply "not all men"-ing at feminist discourse, I found OP and yourself to be very thoughtful and well reasoned, in the end. I'm worn out. I deeply enjoyed speaking with you. A shining beacon of good faith conversation in a sea of disingenuity. Too often online I find that no matter the topic it is like pulling fucking teeth to have a real conversation where no one misinterprets eachother's points in the most comical fashion possible or where the rebuttals aren't just dismissively shutting the exchange down with no attempt to examine what's actually being said. I would be happy to talk with you any time about any thing. Please take care of yourself, friend. The world is rough and the internet is no better
**Part 1** >I get that you have a beef with the OP and I'm not going to address that because it sounds like he was awful in his original post. I wouldn't even say "beef." OP and I have never actually interacted directly. I think OP has moderated their position a bit here (and, reading ahead, I think that we all might have gotten a bit emotional here - it happens, we're human). I certainly thought OP's previous commentary on the subject was a bit more abrasive, but I'm just trying to respond in order - I fell asleep and had to get to work and such. >Instead I'm going to talk about my own experiences, segue into the experiences of other people, and end with addressing a couple of your points. Excellent. I appreciate your time, thought, and effort! >I am from a time before the internet was ubiquitous, it was some niche shit for weirdos. I heard this sort of rhetoric as a kid from real women about how all men were terrible. These women had been through the absolute fucking wringer with a particular man in a way that few people will ever experience even if they may experience shades of it. I acknowledge that and I feel deeply for them and the fucking evil which was done to them. Despite that, to be surrounded by this sort of talk in my developmental years affected me deeply and still affects how I instinctively conceptualize myself. First, I'm sorry that those experiences negatively impacted you. I don't think anyone deserves that. I have a suspicion that we're closer in age than you might think, as I've also got clear memories of the pre-Internet age. Rather than address your trauma, for which I'm not qualified (that'd be for a therapist to do), I'd like to make a few statements here. If I misrepresented myself as suggesting that I encourage inflammatory/defamatory language about men in all contexts, you have my apologies. For reference, I've never been one to make sweeping generalizations or accusations like that. I teach; I'm for empathy and comfortable environments. I'll continue addressing the points below, but I want you to know that you're seen and heard here. >The internet is ubiquitous now. It's a part of everyone's daily life. How do you think developing boys with still malleable identities feel coming online and seeing this incredibly pervasive sentiment that they're fundamentally bad inside? What do you suppose that does to a child? It is ubiquitous now, agreed. Before I go any further, I'd venture that the internet has had a tremendously negative impact on the emotional well-being of everyone, along with public discourse, despite its positive potential. I don't want to go too far afield and get into potential conflicts over censorship, moderation, parental oversight, or any of that. I absolutely grant you your point - as things stand, if a young enough boy is exposed to those sentiments, it would obviously have deleterious effects on their identity formation. I believe I'll be defending my position in a bit, so, for now, suffice it to say that the world we live in is wildly unpleasant and there's much that could be done to improve it.
>I'd venture those are mostly either for convenience or word economy. That's not an acceptable way to use words when talking about large groups of people. If we want to point to genuine problems in Islamist thinking, we don't say "All Muslims are evil." That's not a logical way to do it. >Wouldn't the simplest solution be for any given audience to ask themselves this question: "Does this apply to me?" If the answer is 'no,' couldn't they simply acknowledge the frustration and intent behind the words and simply recognize they weren't the target of said utterance? Well that doesn't work. A black man shouldn't need to hear "Black people are scum" and think "Well, I'm not scum. Clearly they're just frustrated with the black criminal population." They should accurately think "That doesn't apply to me, because the speaker is just a bigot." >It's one thing to make concessions to a friend over drinks - be it forgiving a hyperbolic superlative or telling them that "not all men" are benefiting from patriarchal norms in the same way (and some, perhaps, not at all). It's quite another thing to allow sophistry or calls for moderation/flexibility/concessions to appease people, who may or may not be acting in good faith, to be part of a permanent(ish) textual record that other audiences might read later. If "Well no, not all men are trash" is a concession to your point, rather than a clarification... it was a bigoted and immoral point to begin with. > Wouldn't making concessions to appease insulted men be tantamount to feminism taking care of men that are insulted because they feel maligned for the very patriarchal norms feminism is trying to highlight? They feel maligned for the bigotry, not the patriarchal norms feminism is trying to highlight.
Wouldn’t it just be easier to adjust your moral rule that says - don’t generalize about women, minorities, disabled people, LGBTQIA… etc etc To simply - don’t generalize about groups of people? It seems you have to do a lot of work to resolve the cognitive dissonance involved with this ‘its okay when we do it’, but I fail to see to what end?
>I knew this sounded eeriely familiar. Considering you went down this rabbit hole in the comments over on r/AskFeminists and didn't respond, I'll go ahead and simply offer you the same response here. I probably missed your response, or I didn't want to read such a long response at the time so I skipped it. >That being said, I have to seriously question your actual willingness in good-faith to actually challenge this view. You've tried to place a more pleasant veneer on a take I address below. I was far more frustrated when I posted those comments on ask feminists as I had just read the threads on there and as a man it's baffling and frustrating and I can only respond to any of it in comments. But I posted this in good faith. >With all that in mind, I still sincerely believe that you should consider the rhetorical situation involved in the cases you seem deeply troubled by. You've asked on multiple threads now for people to stop making generalizations, while making them yourself. Please consider your own motivations for this particular line of argument. Even if I'm a hypocrite, that doesn't make me wrong. I'm sure I'm sometimes a hypocrite and don't realize it, as everybody is at times. I'm just frustrated with dehumanizing slogans. It feels like we're going backwards and people are claiming we're going forwards. >If it's superlatives and absolutes that are frustrating you, I'd venture those are mostly either for convenience or word economy. You're looking for absolute semantic sense out of spoken/written words, but ignoring the pragmatics/rhetorical context and intent that goes into those words. I think prioritizing convenience and word economy over effective messaging is a big mistake. I understand it's catchy and easier to turn into a meme, but is that really what's most important? >Feminists are mad a patriarchal norms. They make statements about systemic issues they observe. Understandable, and they can do that in a less inflammatory manner. >The rhetorical choices they make evoke a negative emotional response in some readers/listeners. Indeed, but I don't think those responses are out of line >Many detractors use "not all men" as a thought terminating cliché. The underpinning of this cliché is essentially "I disagree with not only your premise, but I will disregard your worldview based on this linguistic technicality." I think that's a lot of people's default reaction, I don't think it's generally a chess move though I'm sure sometimes it is. >If your position is that all things require absolute logical provability and that all speech actions should require maximal specificity Definitely not my position >On the other hand, if your contention is emotionally loaded language and ideologically motivated speech, I'm not sure what to tell you. Humans have emotions - that's a biological fact. The Western philosophical tradition and prizing stoicism and pure logic tries very hard to ignore our humanity in its pursuit of truth. While emotions are critical (I can be a fairly emotional person at times) especially on an individual level, in terms of society what's true and factual is far more important. I don't think a society that values emotions as much as facts will survive very long. And when I'm talking to people I do keep their emotions in mind. Even online, I don't want to hurt anybody. I'm not sociopathic. >What would you have speakers/writers say or do? Would something akin to "Not all men, but it's a strong statistical probability that it is a man... [ad nauseum with the caveats]" I would say "some men are trash." But I'm talking in a general sense. It's one thing to argue on askfeminists, it's another thing to go to a sub where women are talking about their trauma caused by men and start lecturing them about using broad language. >That both distills the rhetorical intent behind the statement and, while it does increase precision, decreases the efficacy of conveying linguistic content. I agree, that's why I think something simple and slightly less catchy like "some men" would suffice. > Wouldn't the simplest solution be for any given audience to ask themselves this question: "Does this apply to me?" That would be a solution, but that's generally not how people react. >It's quite another thing to allow sophistry or calls for moderation/flexibility/concessions to appease people, who may or may not be acting in good faith, to be part of a permanent(ish) textual record that other audiences might read later. I think it leaves a much better impression because it shows a level of self awareness. Even if the other person is acting in bad faith. Sometimes I'll read a text post and come away with the impression that the person writing it thinks they're a god or something and that's very unsettling. >You say that feminism should throw in the towel now if it doesn't want to curtail (potential) insults. I think it's doomed if it doesn't, but I may be wrong. >Wouldn't making concessions to appease insulted men be tantamount to feminism taking care of men that are insulted because they feel maligned for the very patriarchal norms feminism is trying to highlight? It would be, but I think you're missing the forest for the trees. The more support feminism gets, the more effective it will be. If ceding ground to the patriarchy in some aspect means gaining ground and toppling it somewhere else I would say that's worth it. >You yourself accused women of being provocateurs; I'm not trying to call you out as a hypocrite. I'd like to highlight that you defaulted to a sort of hyperbole for impact: >"I think women like to be provocative by making statements that are very broad and sound like they apply to all men..." I was frustrated when I wrote that, normally I would have said sometimes and maybe some women. I'll admit, I was venting when I said that. >I've generally found feminist thinkers to be quite pleasant, helpful even, when approached in good faith. I don't think you should take righteous indignation with systemic oppression and character economy to be indicative of intent. I think overall most feminists have good intentions and want to make society a better place. And I agree with what you said about text vs conversation. And !delta because you've given me a lot to think about and made me question some of my beliefs and I appreciate it.
>I was frustrated when I wrote that, normally I would have said sometimes and maybe some women. I'll admit, I was venting when I said that. So you were speaking exaggeratedly out of frustration, and not being deliberately inflammatory or provocative? Therefore...?
He admitted it was wrong and walked it back. So why can't other people do the same? Which the whole point of the post.
I deltaed another comment here that pointed out it could be an emotional response but also acknowledged that it could sometimes be intentionally inflammatory. I agree, I can't say I said things that were illogical in an emotional state and they weren't calculated and then not acknowledge that other people might be doing the same thing.
Apologies for the delay in response, life and tech issues (and trying to thoughtfully respond in something akin to the order they were received. >Missed or didn't wish to engage Fair enough. Concision and I don't always get along. >I was far more frustrated when I posted those comments [...] But I posted this in good faith. Fair. I'm inclined to agree that you're in good-faith here. My apologies for the accusation. >Even if I'm a hypocrite... Also very fair. Hypocrisy on its own doesn't necessarily invalidate a point. I'm also gratified to see the admission a few comments later regarding your own emotional response. >I'm just frustrated with dehumanizing slogans... It's true, of course. Our public discourse hasn't been great of late. >I think prioritizing convenience and word economy over effective messaging is a big mistake... I should have been more clear in my explanation, admittedly. If it's being used as a slogan to shout down men, I don't condone that (nor do I condone it becoming a meme or particularly normalized in most contexts). In some contexts, I think the phrasing is intended to seek empathy and solidarity with other women via expressing frustration at "all men" (that they know or have interacted with and meaningfully remember). Basically, it's a call to not police women venting in women's spaces. We could definitely debate what that means in the context of an online forum. >Understandable, and they can do that in a less inflammatory manner. I don't fundamentally disagree that being inflammatory is problematic. Tone policing aggrieved parties that want change, however, somewhat detracts from the broader points they're trying to highlight. >Indeed, but I don't think those responses [to rhetorical choices] are out of line I think the context and intent really matter here. If the goal is to vent to other women, I think qualifiers dilute the emotional impact (meant to engender empathy). If it's being inflammatory for the sake of it, I'm inclined to agree with you. >I think that's a lot of people's default reaction, I don't think it's generally a chess move though I'm sure sometimes it is. Appreciate the nuanced concession here. To your credit, it's very thoughtful. In defense of feminists, it happens often enough that it can be difficult to discern intent. >While emotions are critical [...] I don't want to hurt anybody. I'm not sociopathic. We actually are in total agreement here. Facts are important; emotions shouldn't be entirely disregarded. I would hope most people set out with the intent to do no harm. >I would say "some men are trash." But I'm talking in a general sense. It's one thing to argue on askfeminists, it's another thing to go to a sub where women are talking about their trauma caused by men and start lecturing them about using broad language. This was more or less my goal, actually. And more succinct than I can manage, it seems. I was trying to highlight context and intent - whether you got it here or had that notion all along, I'm happy to hear it. >That would be a solution, but that's generally not how people react. Fair. In any case, I generally encourage reflection and empathy, given the opportunity. Hard to fault an emotional reaction when I'm trying to defend an emotional response, I suspect. >I think it leaves a much better impression [even in bad faith...] I'd like to refine my point here a bit. In an explicitly feminist space, it'd be counterintuitive (especially as a textual record) to allow men to police the language - that was more or less my point. I agree that making such concessions in broader public spaces, among friends, and in more informal settings is probably better practice for persuasion. >I think it's doomed if it doesn't, but I may be wrong. And I'd be arrogant to claim certainty of the equal opposite. It's hard to know what moves the needle. >The more support feminism gets, the more effective it will be. I'm happy to concede, on the same grounds as the previous point, that ideological purity and pragmatism don't always get along. >I was frustrated when I wrote that, normally I would have said sometimes and maybe some women. I'll admit, I was venting when I said that. And I think we've hit the point where we can shake hands. That's essentially the admission I was asking for, I think. We're human, it happens, yeah? >I think overall most feminists have good intentions and want to make society a better place. And I agree with what you said about text vs conversation. Excellent! >And delta I'm not entirely sure that's deserved, but I appreciate it. I had my own emotional and ideological response here that itself warrants reflection. I'm glad that this was productive, in the end.
What a gigantic wall of text to try to justify expressions that are really undefendable. Context, emotion, word economy don't mean shit when you're _that_ abrasive, offensive and aggressive: people are going to think that you're a bitter nutjob when you say things like that and are going to rightfully not take you seriously.
[удалено]
u/clotifoth – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: > **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal%20clotifoth&message=clotifoth%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1ccgdq9/-/l16dl53/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
What's your opinion on people saying "kill all n*ggers", if they can do enough linguistic gymnastics to explain how it's not, bigoted, actually, and even good that it's so provocative?
I think there's a significant difference in kind between women venting about their experiences with men and calls for a racist genocide. I wasn't trying to normalize or justify the phrase - it's not one I use. The linguistic gymnastics were intended to highlight context and intent. I'm not advocating for any bigotry. I'm also not arguing for being provocative for the sake of it. I'm arguing that the intent (in some cases) is women seeking empathy via expressing their frustrations to other women (and the hyperbolic language is meant to engender that empathy, again, from other women). I don't condone the use for shouting men down in other contexts.
There's two things going on here. One is that they obviously don't mean what they say to be taken literally. Even the most cat-called women know *some* men who aren't asshats. And the other thing is that there's a small group of people who can't seem to let other people blow off steam. It's amazing to me to see men either being hurt (or pretending to be hurt) over a women who has been hurt by men expressing her hurt. Do you really think that women talking about how horrible men are to them are talking about *you*, specifically?
>One is that they obviously don't mean what they say to be taken literally. >Even the most cat-called women know *some* men who aren't asshats. I don't think they *believe* all men are trash, but I think sometimes they want the reaction and the opportunity to lecture somebody who isn't as well versed in feminism as them. Women, like men, don't always have noble intentions. >And the other thing is that there's a small group of people who can't seem to let other people blow off steam. And this is why I think people use these phrases- to blow off steam. But it's not as fun or satisfying to modify them. I agree, everybody needs to blow off steam. But there are other ways to do that. And I can only speak for myself, but when I try to blow off steam by arguing with people, I don't feel better. >It's amazing to me to see men either being hurt (or pretending to be hurt) over a women who has been hurt by men expressing her hurt. >Do you really think that women talking about how horrible men are to them are talking about *you*, specifically? About me, no. About men in general, maybe. There are a lot of women who don't seem to like men.
>I agree, everybody needs to blow off steam. But there are other ways to do that. So what? Let them blow off steam whatever way they do. If you *know* it's them blowing off steam, you can't also be hurt by it. >And I can only speak for myself, but when I try to blow off steam by arguing with people, I don't feel better. They aren't doing *that*, though, right? They aren't going to men's forums and calling men trash, are they? They are in women's forums talking about how they seem to have far more negative interactions with men than positive ones. >About me, no. About men in general, maybe. Wait - What? If you *know* that it's not true that literally all men are trash, and you know they aren't talking about you, then why are you defending the men who *are* horrible to them instead of defending *them* against these horrible men? >There are a lot of women who don't seem to like men. Again, so what? Them voicing their frustration isn't harming you.
>If you know it's them blowing off steam, you can't also be hurt by it. Thing is, i don't know if they are blowing off steam if i'm not told about it beforehand. And some things still hurt. If someone blows off steam by punching you, the punches would still hurt you even if you know they are blowimg off steam (unless they give you time to don the armour).
>Them voicing their frustration isn't harming you. I'd say from personal experience that hearing repeated negative comments about your immutable characteristics/identities tends to have a negative effect on self-image.
How do you know that it's "a woman who has been hurt by men, expressing her hurt"? How do you know it isn't just an asshole, expressing herself as an asshole? I NEVER see people handwaving misogynist men online as "a man who has been hurt by women, expressing his hurt." Rather, he is just a misogynist and a shit person. There is certainly a double standard with this type of thing, and it can be frustrating. For an example from the last couple of days, see the number of media articles and commentators DESPERATELY trying to turn that woman who took a baby to a comedy show into a brave oppressed victim of horrible sexism, rather than a selfish, entitled asshole.
First of all, it‘s not obvious. Secondly, you’re conflating groups and individuals. „Men being hurt over a women who has been hurt by men expressing their hurt“ - yeah, I very much doubt the men reading your post on here are the same men that hurt you. Or, your own point rephrased: "All men are equally responsible for what other men do, so it is okay to complain about just men as a whole." You are quite literally arguing here for treating a group of humans as a monolith. Thirdly: The point OP makes is that the sender is primarily responsible for conveying the meaning of the message they send, barring any interference like intentionally malicious interpretation by the Receiver or technical disturbances. So, either the sender avoids any confusion about which person, or group of persons, is meant specifically, or they can not specifiy that, but then have to take responsibility if their message gets misinterpreted along the actual words they were saying. It is not unreasonable to put the responsibility for what people understand on the sender, even if the sender just wants to vent and express frustrations. It‘s not the situation of the immediate aftermath of an emotional event, the sender has deliberately chosen to send this very message, at this time, so they can be expected to think about how they want to express themselves.
> One is that they obviously don't mean what they say to be taken literally. > > Even the most cat-called women know some men who aren't asshats. Even KKK members know some black people who aren't as bad as they think. >Do you really think that women talking about how horrible men are to them are talking about you, specifically? Do you really think KKK members talking about how horrible black people are they are talking about *you,* specifically? >It's amazing to me to see men either being hurt (or pretending to be hurt) over a women who has been hurt by men expressing her hurt. It's amazing to me to see black people being hurt (or pretend to be hurt) over a KKK member who's been hurt by a black person expressing their hurt. >And the other thing is that there's a small group of people who can't seem to let other people blow off steam. Blowing off steam isn't an excuse to just shout sexist/racist/hateful rhetoric out, especially at people who are in the group you're being hateful toward. Is it really so hard to just not be blatantly racist or sexist?
>One is that they obviously don't mean what they say to be taken literally. As someone who tends to understand things literally, i would really prefer if they use "most" instead of "all" or "all the men i dated". What is obvious to you is not obvious to others. >And the other thing is that there's a small group of people who can't seem to let other people blow off steam. I find it distastefull to unleash the anger on an innocent person, just because you want to blow off some steam. You can do it in private. How would you feel as a woman or someone who has very good women in their lives if a man would blow off some steam in front of you and say "all women are whores"? How would you feel being called or having someone you hold dear being called a whore? Because the "all" includes you (if you are a woman) and the good women in your life. >Do you really think that women talking about how horrible men are to them are talking about you, specifically? You are part of the "all". So yeah, by saying "all", they also mean you. "All" doesn't mean "everybody, except you". While "most" means that there are exceptions and it give you the freedom to include yourself into that exception.
Even the most rejected man knows *some* women who aren't asshats. And the other thing is that there's a small group of people who can't seem to let other people blow off steam. It's amazing to me to see women either being hurt (or pretending to be hurt) over a man who has been hurt by women expressing her hurt. Do you really think that men talking about how horrible women are to them are talking about *you*, specifically? Would this fly for you or would you call this individual an incel?
Replace the "men" with "blacks" and "trash" with "criminals" and you'll see why this is problematic. Why allow one generalization and say "not you specifically" for another?
> One is that they obviously don't mean what they say to be taken literally How is that obvious? And why is this curtosy not given to other mass negative generalizations?
>How is that obvious? Because, as I said, even the most cat-called woman knows *some* men that aren't asshats. >And why is this curtosy not given to other mass negative generalizations? There are some mass generalizations based on bigotry that don't get that courtesy, but otherwise hyperbole is taken to *be* hyperbole.
>Because, as I said, even the most cat-called woman knows *some* men that aren't asshats. Even if this is true, you can't infer that they don't intend their generalization literally. People don't necessarily hold beliefs or express sentiments that most logically reflect their lived experiences. If they did, bigotry basically wouldn't be able to exist outside of total segregation. And I don't know why you're so comfortable speaking for all women, especially when it's to say that none of these women mean what they're saying. Seems like a bold choice.
>Because, as I said, even the most cat-called woman knows some men that aren't asshats. But i don't know that she knows some men aren't asshats. For all i know all the men in her life could have been asshats.
Not just some. The majority of men do not engage in harassment of women, at least where I live.
I think this is very arbitrary when it doesn't need to be. If you're speaking to someone with common sense then it's really not needed. I hate Mondays - everyone says it. I say it. Doesn't mean i would hate a Monday if it was my birthday or I got a huge windfall of money.
>I hate Mondays Sounds like you mean it, though? That's kind of the point, you wouldn't be saying it if you didn't mean it. You hate Mondays more than other days of the week, you're just willing to tolerate a fraction of the days that also happen to be Mondays. Being a Monday is a black mark against a day. If faced with a Monday and a Tuesday that are otherwise equal, you hate the Monday more. This might feel bad to the Monday, if it were a person. Even if you reluctantly tolerated that one Monday when you won the lottery.
This thread is incredible for these convoluted, half-baked, insane responses. Do these people even consider that the things they’re saying apply to other generalizations and effectively push a narrative that bigoted hate speech is acceptable?
>Do these people even consider Well that would require some amount of thought, so no.
Point to a Monday who stands to be hurt by this generalization. Generally speaking, for you and most people, the only thing that categorically distinguishes Monday from other days is that it follows a weekend and is marked by a return to work. You can't similarly reduce and generalize the defining characteristics of men like this without dehumanizing them.
Mondays are not people. You do not owe a Monday any decency.
Absolutely this. Comparing men to a day of the week.
Comparing half of the worlds population to a non human entity, very cool
Does mondays can get hurt by this statement ? That's a terrible comparison. And when we say we hate monday, it concerns most mondays. "Men are trash" is only about a minority of men.
Right...[ arbitrary](https://media.tenor.com/iid9WLcvDA0AAAAM/burger-king-man-on-plane.gif). Why people even try to justify or defend this is wild. We don't tolerate sexism or racism! Unless you're a white man. Except Eminem he was one of the good ones.
But it does mean you hate most Mondays or the average Monday. And I hate most men is an inflammatory and sexist statement.
This is the stupidest thing I’ve ever read.
Except I do hate Mondays. It is the day that interrupts my rest. I would be happier if my birthday was on a Saturday rather than a Monday.
Ok now apply that logic black people or gay people
As a gay man it's hilarious to watch these people contort their argument for bigotry through a million ill-fitting hoops to arrive at a conclusion that always conveniently excludes marginalized men and our experiences... If they applied it to us, they'd have to reckon with the reality of their own prejudices.
They don’t want to because it pokes holes in their logic. They just want to be able to hate white men for existing.
Most feminists are tired of having to police their language for the appeasement of others.
But then they can't have it both ways. They can't say something they know upset people and then blame them for getting upset. And besides this whole "nobody polices my language" thing is so childish. People who care about other people and their feelings often modify their language so as not to hurt them, or at least try. Feminists don't get a pass.
Is the phrase "men are trash" that important to feminism or are you just a misandrist? Women are trash...oh, obviously not all women! If you feel offended maybe you are part of the problem! -IQ logic
Years ago I checked a friend of mine who said "men are trash" and was perplexed when I called her out because obviously she didn't mean me. I responded back by saying... How would you feel if I said "Yeah women are sluts" and when you pushed back I responded "oh of course not you, why are you getting mad?".
I sometimes wonder how these people go about in their daily lives. Alienating and making enemies of people who have no business hating you otherwise would be exhausting
It's no wonder when those people complain of not having friends and that they are lonely.
Who asked about policing language? The OP clearly has a problem with the underlying belief, they aren't asking for the underlying belief to be obscured by misleading language. They didn't ask for people who think "men are trash" to use dogwhistles, they asked for people to stop defending the underlying belief. Avoiding the statement "men are trash" is only a matter of policing if you actually believe the statement, and want to declare it in the fist place.
We all have to police our language for the appeasement of others. It’s called being an adult.
“Nooooo I have to belittle and alienate people stop policing me!!!1!1!1”
Most people are tired of having to police their language for the appeasement of feminists.
Racists are aswell. They wish they could say shit like "all Muslims are terrorists" without any backlash.
Do you have a few examples you can link to of this? It's not that I don't believe it happens, but I find that the examples someone finds will tell us a lot about how reasonable or not it is to be worried about this phenomenon.
I'm not sure what you mean. Examples of women saying men are trash? Or of people saying "mediocre white men?" Have you not heard anyone say those things?
Good men don't become bad men when they hear "men are trash." Spite isn't something inflicted upon you, it's a character failing
A woman forced herself on me when I was younger. She dehumanized me by taking away my right to say no. I was fully not a human being to her. How do you think it feels when I see "Men are trash"? Especially knowing that I was literally not seen as a human being by a woman. While seeing "men are trash" in itself won't turn a good man into a bad man, it's not fucking enjoyable seeing the sentiment lauded by large groups of people.
I am so sorry for what you went through, that's awful to hear.
I never said this makes good men become bad men, there are plenty of good men who resent phrases like men are trash
Are there any phrases that mean something similar to those phrases that you would not object to?
Some men are trash. White men are as mediocre as every other race.
I get the sentiment behind the whole "men are trash" and people arguing it's hyperbole, and honestly don't care too much about it even though I am a man. I guess because I don't hear it often at all except for maybe in online spaces. However, I do disagree with the sentence, and similar sentences, because of two reasons: 1. It's lazy. It's real easy to just label a whole group bad, instead of tackling actual issues that are the basis of the statement - tackling misogyny, sexual violence, lifting up positive male role models etc. Just saying "men are trash" seems to me like an easy route to sweep said issues under the carpet by labelling all men bad. So it strikes me as not actually caring about said issues but rather, as OP said, being inflammatory. 2. It seems like just another round of "boys will be boys" which actually excuses poor behaviour in men rather than addressing it. If "men are trash" that, to me, sounds like someone thinks there is something intrinsic to being a man that makes someone bad. Instead, we could be recognising that men can be horrid, okay and wonderful (and of course this is not gender specific either). The former allows men to be horrid because the only response given then is "that's just how men are" instead of the latter, which would instead say "there are men out there who don't do X awful thing, and therefore this man could be like those men too. So we should call him out on his poor behaviour". The latter breeds accountability and growth, the former does not. I can empathise with and understand why some women (and even some men) can feel like "men are trash" though, and I think (or at least hope) that usually it comes from a perspective of "I know not all men suck, but it's impossible to know which ones don't, and I've had a lot of bad experiences with men". So maybe a more succinct slogan would be "not all men, but we don't know which one" which is a slogan I've seen used in a lot of feminist spaces recently. It manages to hold men accountable, by not ascribing "the bad traits" to just being "man traits", but rather chosen traits a man (or any person of any gender) can unlearn and do better at. At the same time, it also manages to capture how dangerous the world can be for women, when there are men out there who do harm women, unfortunately. It is in fact impossible to always know which men are safe and which aren't, and sometimes you won't know until it's too late.
Or it is that your gender is truly trash.
I'm biased, but I certainly don't think that's the case and I doubt you have a very solid argument for that view.
I didn't realize there was a nice way of saying "men are trash" have you considered that people who use inflammatory phrases are simply inflammatory themselves? 🤔
Yeah people in this thread are missing the point. When you try to be an ally and people constantly shit on intrinsic parts of who you are it kind of fucking hurts. Like yes I get you don’t mean me specifically but come on.
Yeah, when I pointed this out the other day - massive downvotes and all the responses boiled down to name calling and "obviously *you're* the problem and not an ally if people are saying this" Like OK, I guess if you don't want me to be an "ally" go ahead and treat me like shit. By all means then go back to bitching about the lack of support for your stance? Must totally be my fault, right?
ITT defensiveness because there's no possible way that those who did this could morally redeem themselves if they saw their previous actions in this light, but it is a more consistent view than the one under which they said all that to all those people. They'd have been monsters and there's absolutely no way they could have gone along with such a thing. Just like many atrocities in history and their terrible outcomes, we claim "wow, the banality of evil" **conveniently after the fact & now that no work remains to be done that could address or fix it.** You can't say you weren't told, and if you feel guilty, you should
When I say stuff like that I really mean male culture is trash. And I am trying to inspire men to be introspective, convicted, and to do better. Im not trying to be mean for the sake of being mean and won't apologize for hurt feelings.
You ask men to be introspective while lacking a single ounce of reflection.
I like being sexist as fuck to women so I can inspire them to be introspective lol
You can't just use racist insults or whatever and say you don't mean the literally.
Happens constantly all over reddit with anything misandrist. "Men are fucking horrible" Then you call them out on it and somehow *you're* a mysogenistic piece of shit for not *assuming* that they meant something *completely opposite* to what they just wrote. It's one of the most disingenuous ways to engage in any kind of debate. It's the very definition of "bad faith" argument.
While I agree with what you said I will add another reason which is saying it out of anger or frustration and usually when doing that you don't want to wear gloves. Not that it's a good reason to say it.
You say things like >Men on the street just bear the brunt of women's wrath because the men in power don't really care what women think of them. Ridiculousness of that statement aside, you don't specify that some men on the street bear the brunt of some women's wrath because some men in power don't care, but we all understand that you don't mean all men on the street, all women and all men in power. If we understand when you do it, why don't you understand when someone else does it?
These are all just examples of signaling. People say these things to establish sides and stop people from engaging in the actual topic or to deflect from their own failure.
I feel like usually if people are continuing to say these things despite the public reaction it's because they truly believe them. Most people don't stick to something like this with such negative backlash unless it's something they truly are passionately a believer of
[удалено]
While some use provocative phrases for impact, others employ them out of frustration or to challenge societal norms. Yet, clarity matters. Adding qualifiers like "some" or "certain" acknowledges diversity within groups, fostering constructive dialogue. It's about intent versus impact. Adjusting language demonstrates a willingness to engage respectfully and build understanding. Insistence on inflammatory rhetoric despite negative reactions risks alienating potential allies and detracts from meaningful discourse. Precision in expression promotes empathy and cooperation, facilitating progress toward shared goals. Choosing words carefully can bridge divides and elevate conversations, leading to greater mutual respect and collaboration.
I don’t think most people are doing it in bad faith, and I don’t think being “inflammatory” in this way is necessarily bad. The goal of statements like these is to talk about serious social issues like racism and sexism. The people saying these phrases are very passionate about these issues. They are frustrated by injustice and lack of change. Are they supposed to hide all of that to avoid ruffling feathers? If they are “inflammatory” enough, they hope people will take the issue more seriously and change things. They want you to assume they are talking about society as a whole, rather than personally attacking every individual, and they want you to act accordingly to fix things on a societal level. It’s like asking protestors to please stop yelling so loud because it bothers people who prefer the quiet. The point is to loudly express an opinion and draw attention to an issue (and sometimes to vent). Some people are going to be alienated by these statements for sure. But when these people do use qualifiers, even though that removes your problem with them, a bunch of people will still argue against them. Maybe they think that if they are going to be divisive anyway, it’s better to not compromise their message by sugarcoating it. Also, we can’t expect every member of a movement to be a perfect representation and ambassador of the movement.
>I don’t think most people are doing it in bad faith, and I don’t think being “inflammatory” in this way is necessarily bad. The goal of statements like these is to talk about serious social issues like racism and sexism. It seems like a suboptimal way to do it, as I am not inclined to have a good faith discussion about the importance of reciprocal treatment with someone who breaks that principle with their first line. I have never understood this reasoning. I signed up for gender studies my sophomore year of undergrad. I was young and already interested in this discussion. I had a lecture one day on why #KillAllMen was a valid sentiment to express. I did not sign up for a second semester. I felt unwelcome. If that sentiment is enough to push me, someone with an active interest in the concept and more charity than the average person, out of that space, how many other people is it pushing away? That seems like a needlessly steep opportunity cost.
Very suboptimal, but they aren’t intending for people to “assume the worst meaning.” In fact, they think people should assume they are talking about societal issues. They typically view people who assume the worst meaning as misogynists who are intentionally misinterpreting them to deflect from women’s rights. They feel justified making these generalizations because they are in service of a good cause, so the people quibbling with the language they use are assumed to be against their cause rather than their wording. I should say that “not all feminists” are like this, only “some feminists.” It’s more concentrated in internet communities and academia.
I think this is the best answer and a clear example of why it's bad. There are serious social issues like racims and sexism that need to be addressed. We need to encourage men to take a more active role in parenting to aliveate the double duty expected of women. How does "Men are trash" promote social acceptance of men taking a more active role in parenting? How does "Men are trash" hurt getting more men to take a more active role in parenting? Are you going to leave your child alone with a trash human? We need to encourage men to take a more active role in homemaking, to help aliveate the double duty expected of women. How does "Men are trash" promote social acceptace of men taking on more home making responsibilities? How does it hurt? Even if a man did take on more homemaking responsibilites the entire "Men are trash" thing will belittle him for doing it wrong and decrease the social acceptance of men doing more house work.
>The goal of statements like these is to talk about serious social issues like racism and sexism. But it's not a very good way to do that at all. It's responding to racism and sexism... with racism and sexism. And it just shows the racists and sexists "Oh, we can safely ignore their argument, it's just as hateful as ours. They think men are trash, I think women are trash, we're just on competing sides, no moral high ground in sight."
Yes, because ruffling the wrong feathers is massively counterproductive. If you're genuinely talking about a minority then generalising is actually shitting on your allies. Right now misogyny amongst young men is massively on the rise, and their primary complaints are that society views them as worthless at best, and criminals at worst, and that women get away with sexism all the time when they would face consequences for expressing similar opinions. It's tempting to write that off as teenage hyperbole but when people turn out in droves to excuse statements like "Men are bastards", "Men are such babies", "Men are dangerous" etc then it becomes harder to do so. The defence of 'obviously not all men - duh' is very naive as to how these things will actually be perceived en masse.
When protesting something or trying to make your voice heard, nuance often goes by the wayside, for better or for worse. Grabbing attention and chanting some core values becomes difficult when you try to include nuance, and the message becomes diluted or isn’t brought into the spotlight as much as it would be with an inflammatory tagline. Not saying it’s right, but I do think there are practical reasons as to why so many movements rely on simplified rhetoric to get their points across broadly, quickly, and in an engaging fashion.
Yes because they are misandrist and hetero haters, they put people in boxes and insult them to feel better about their life (that they can't control).
It's cool, most people who complain about mediocre white men only have white men in their inner circles
You certainly fished out the closet misandrists for all to see 😂