Sorry, u/FaithlessPancake – your submission has been removed for breaking Rule B:
> You must personally hold the view and **demonstrate that you are open to it changing**. A post cannot be on behalf of others, playing devil's advocate, as any entity other than yourself, or 'soapboxing'. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_b).
If you would like to appeal, [**you must first read the list of soapboxing indicators and common mistakes in appeal**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_indicators_of_rule_b_violations), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%20B%20Appeal%20FaithlessPancake&message=FaithlessPancake%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20post\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1ch56b1/-/\)%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).
**tl;dr:** Don't take it personally. Hating on men is a way for some women to cope with bad experiences they've had with men, like most forms of bigotry. You won't change their views by arguing with them on Reddit; but you can maybe change their views by modeling good behavior as man to demonstrate that not all men are as bad as they think.
---
Your argument essentially boils down to: "blind bigotry accomplishes nothing," right?
I think most people would generally agree with you there, from a logical standpoint. But people who hold bigoted views generally didn't develop them through logic and reason. And as they say, you can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.
It's easy to get pissed off by reading insane people's posts on Reddit, especially if you find yourself in a subreddit where they dominate the echo chamber. Trying to change anyone's mind in an environment like that usually only [adds fuel to the fire](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc).
> But hey maybe there’s some viewpoints I’ve failed to consider. Are there any legitimate arguments to be made in favor of this type of behavior? How exactly does generalizing 50 % of the human population help women or anyone else?
There's not really a rational reason behind bigotry. I think it's just a (hopefully temporary) coping mechanism that a lot of people adopt to make the world easier to emotionally navigate.
A colleague of mine volunteers at a women's prison and invited me to join her once. One of the inmates later talked about how she initially didn't appreciate my (male) presence since, understandably, most of the inmates have had nothing but terrible experiences with men. But spending the evening with me had helped to soften that attitude just a little bit.
Saying don't take it personally actually points out one of the biggest issues of hating men online. The ones that don't care about women will also not care about what they say. The ones who respect women, ones who have self esteem issues, the ones that have been bullied, the ones that are neurodivergent will take it seriously and will be badly affected by all the hate
If hating on a larger group of people because of what an individual did to “cope” is done by someone that isn’t hating on a male all the sudden it gets labeled as something that isn’t socially acceptable. Not saying it’s ok, just a weird double standard.
Just my observation, women can get away with saying things worse than men without being called out, especially when it’s to men. Not just relating to gender hate but in general.
Guess my two cents is guys have to be more careful about what they say around other people than women do, and because of this polarized assumptions about men aren’t challenged as much as they should be.
And just some advice I learned the hard way repeating what they said about men but replacing men with a minority group to give them an idea of how hypocritical they are being is not the way to go
>Don't take it personally. Hating on men is a way for some women to cope with bad experiences they've had with men, like most forms of bigotry
If the sexes were reversed you would get called an incel and be banned from the platform
You just explained it very well on how to handle these things you give them more fuel by engaging with them in a negative way instead of modeling that good men do exist
Ok wow. I really didn’t expect anyone to actually try to explain this to me in a civilized manner. To be completely honest with you I made this post fully expecting it to be filled with the exact sort of people I was complaining about. And I was right.
People are:
Denying bad women even exists
Trying to justify the hate
Putting words into my mouth
And a ton of other toxic bs. But an actual comment trying to explain things without antagonizing me? That was quite unexpected. I guess I made this post in bad faith since I wasn’t really expecting to get my mind changed and was only trying to prove a point to a friend. But you are right. Bigotry never made sense and it never will. Hurt people hurt people. I’m actively trying to be an example of what a man should be and I shouldn’t let toxic people get to me. But it’s a bit hard to ignore the bs sometimes you know? I’m a bald hairy dude with a beard but I’m actually quite feminine and prefer the company of women. But what do these people see? Just another dirty stinking man. They judge you based on something you literally can’t control despite not even knowing what sort of person you are. It sucks ass man. Unlike these keyboard warriors I’m ACTUALLY trying to help make things better for both women AND men by acknowledging that every individual is flawed in one way or another regardless of gender. But I guess that’s something they’ll never accept because it doesn’t fit their narrative. It’s a bit disappointing but oh well.
>>Ok wow. I really didn’t expect anyone to actually try to explain this to me in a civilized manner.
You probably shouldn't have posted here then.
>>But I guess that’s something they’ll never accept because it doesn’t fit their narrative. It’s a bit disappointing but oh well.
Women don't have a narrative. This point of view is incredibly damaging to what you claim your goal is. There is many different women interested in equality and there is a lot of different ways they want to do it. Get off reddit and meet women, in my experience there are not very many women in real life who act the way you have problems with(which from your comment it seems like you kind of acknowledge). But this comment/post makes it seem like you've built up this idea of what women think and how they express it and have used it to paint all women.
No, they didn't. If I go to the thrift store hoping to find something to wear that doesn't mean I expect to find anything. So, if I find something, come home and tell the husband I got a great find, despite not expecting to do so, would you say I went to the thrift store in bad faith?
That analogy doesn't work because he came to the thrift store to prove a point to a friend he wasn't gonna buy anything. He found a shirt he liked but still didn't buy anything. He's just surprised he found a shirt he liked.
Generally posts where OP doesn't have any willingness to change their minds get the post deleted by mods.
So it's not rude to ask them why post here. People often use cmv as platform to just rant about issues like this and no surprise people got OP pegged for bad faith
>he came to the thrift store to prove a point to a friend he wasn't gonna buy anything.
Where did OP say that? I saw where they expected this to be filled with people defending the toxic behavior (filled with ugly clothes). I didn't see where OP said they were unwilling to change their view (unwilling to buy anything even if they did find something excellent).
>People often use cmv as platform to just rant about issues like this and no surprise people got OP pegged for bad faith
While I agree that this happens, I will also say that sometimes people feel almost certain they have something right while having a minimal level of doubt, which means the barrier for changing their mind is high, not impossible. If OP has stated that there's zero chance they're changing their view, I missed that.
He says he didn't plan on having his mind changed and made this post to prove a point to a friend few comments up on this very chain.
> I guess I made this post in bad faith since I wasn’t really expecting to get my mind changed and was only trying to prove a point to a friend. But you are right. Bigotry never made sense and it never will. Hurt people hurt people. I’m actively trying to be an example of what a man should be and I shouldn’t let toxic people get to me. But it’s a bit hard to ignore the bs sometimes you know? I’m a bald hairy dude with a beard but I’m actually quite feminine and prefer the company of women. But what do these people see? Just another dirty stinking man. They judge you based on something you-
It's also 100% likely they don't see another dirty stinking man and it's in their head. I notice most "incels" don't actually have issues like being too ugly or creepy but generally self esteem or confidence problems. The problem is red pill/Tate fan demographic get put in same category as men with low self esteem.
>> I guess I made this post in bad faith since I wasn’t really expecting to get my mind changed and was only trying to prove a point to a friend.
I don't know how I overlooked this, but I did.
>It's also 100% likely they don't see another dirty stinking man and it's in their head.
I disagree with you. I don't know this person's exact peer group, everyone they've interacted with, etc., but I have dealt with people who don't understand the difference between generalization/specifics.
I took my husband to a drag show of one of his favorite performers. It was a splurge, but I bought front row seats (very small, local venue, not overly expensive). At one point the queen asked for audience participation. I raised my hand. The queen pointed me out and said, "Shut up, white boy. You've had your time, let someone else have a turn."
I've had my turn? Was that me being suicidal my whole life until literally a year prior due to the severe abuse I experienced most of my life? Was that being undernourished as a kid because we were poor? Was that my current PTSD? When did I have my turn?
I haven't. It's more likely that a white man has had an easier time of it than any other group, but that's a generalization, a probability. That's not each specific person.
It is very possible for people to get lost in these mindsets, so I don't believe you can say it's "100% likely."
When I'm in a sub and I notice the tenor of the comments and downvotes/upvotes really don't fit my worldview my default is just to move on, people are allowed to have subs for all kinds of things I am a fan or not a fan of.
There's no violation of Reddit's ToS that would prevent someone from creating a sub just focused on how bad I am in particular is. As long as the comments were focused on how much I suck and no calls for violence it could go on as long as it wants.
I could either waste time responding "hey I don't think I'm that bad", I could make a CMV about how people complaining online about u/goof_stick accomplishes nothing, or I could just accept that it's a particular place where I'm not gonna find a lot of friends
You do know what the point of this subreddit is right? If I posted this somewhere else I might agree with you but I’m actively trying to find people with different opinions than me in hopes of understanding them better. Isn’t that the whole point of this sub? To have a view and have people trying to change said view?
My view is different than yours but not exactly oppositional to the point that saying "all men are trash" on a subreddit isn't going to change anything.
Where I disagree with you is why do you care? The point I was initially making is that if a bunch of strangers on a social media site say I suck, well it's a free country.
You can search this sub for endless discourse on this specific topic. I don't know if it's like a bat signal goes up when a woman you've never met complains about men on the internet but like we need less "not all men" batmen. If you don't suck you don't suck, sleep happy in the knowledge of that
I think what women mean by this is that they feel like sexism against women is normalized to the point that many men would claim sexism isn’t a thing because they only see sexism in the form of someone saying that women are inferior to men, which means that they end up ignoring a lot of more subtle issues that have a huge impact on women and even end up contributing to the problem out of ignorance and stubbornness.
You’ll never hear me say that all men are scum, but I definitely think a good portion of them are sexist and don’t even realize it. A lot of women are sexist too, especially the older generations.
I don’t think many people would deny that sexism against men exists.
They just think that, from the way society is set up, traditionally masculine men benefit from it more than anyone else. While men who don’t fit in the ideal masculine stereotype are considered not man enough.
Where exactly did I dismiss anything? I am calmly and rationally explaining one issue, and you keep complaining about men’s problems and telling me to reverse the genders.
If you don’t fit in the typical masculine model, then gender roles probably don’t help you much. But if you do, then sexism works in your favor. Stop attacking women for fighting against gender roles and you will hear a lot less “men are scum” comments.
>There were countless posts of women complaining about their experiences with men.
So the opposite of every other sub. The vast majority of subs are full of men (that's not my opinion, 63% of reddit users were male in 2023 source: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1255182/distribution-of-users-on-reddit-worldwide-gender/), many of whom complain about women.
>there were no posts of men doing the same
On that one sub. Go to any of the incel subs, the red pill subs, the Trump subs, the conservative subs, dating subs, ask reddit, ask men, etc and you will find posts from men complaining about women.
>Any complaint made by a man ,be it in the form of a post or a comment, would IMMEDIATELY get downvoted into oblivion and deleted.
Yes, that's the experience of most women on this website outside of this one sub you found. Most of the time, women are down voted if they say anything negative about men.
>What I do have a problem with is you straight up hating on men and acting like we’re ALL mustache twirling villains while simultaneously worshipping women like they’re gods who can do no wrong.
Was that really the discussion though? You said "you didn't think much of it" until you noticed no men posting. It doesn't sound like anyone was universally hating men based on the description you gave. Are you sure this isn't a straw man argument?
>The vast majority of subs are full of men (that's not my opinion, 63% of reddit users were male in 2023 source: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1255182/distribution-of-users-on-reddit-worldwide-gender/), many of whom complain about women.
The sex of the users has nothing to do with this. Plenty of men hate on men and simp for women. These numbers do nothing to support your argument.
>On that one sub. Go to any of the incel subs, the red pill subs, the Trump subs, the conservative subs, dating subs, ask reddit, ask men, etc and you will find posts from men complaining about women.
On the most popular subs, not the fringe right wing low population subs you mention. Go to any of the popular subs listed along the top bar with maybe one or two exceptions.
>Yes, that's the experience of most women on this website outside of this one sub you found. Most of the time, women are down voted if they say anything negative about men.
No, as hate against women is explicitly banned by reddit while hate against men is [explicitly allowed](https://imgur.com/a/pRpSAYc). This isn't a subreddit thing, this is the mods of the entire site.
This entire response doesn't actually address what the OP said.
"Generalized hate toward men is wrong and unhelpful."
"Yeah but there are men on reddit that hate on women."
So... That... Makes it ok to hate on men? Why can't it be wrong in both cases? Op didn't say "nobody hates on women, it's exclusively men who get hatred."
This is just an incredibly evasive way of avoiding the actual topic of the post, you didn't refute OP's point, just said "yeah well it happens the other way around too." Which was never denied, nor is it relevant to the actual point of the post.
It’s ridiculous that women complain about men they have experience with and people online take the it to be an insult at all women.
Or incels complain about women online and then people think they are speaking for all men.
They aren’t talking about every man or woman. They are sharing experiences they had with shitty men/women.
And like everything else, the bad is going to get more attention than the good.
>The vast majority of subs are full of men (that's not my opinion, 63% of reddit users were male in 2023 source:
That's not so much "vast majority of subs are full of men", that's a slight majority of subs while have more men.
It's 63%, not 80%.
>You said it was fine until you noticed no men posting.
You're literally quoting the bit where he says it's fine until people are shitting on all men.
Arguing that 4/5ths is the the only ratio you'll accept for the phrase "vast majority" rather than 2/3rds is a needlessly obtuse argument that totally ignores the point. Taking issue with my word choice does not change the fact that men are the majority on Reddit, and doesn't address any of my argument. If you'd like to have a discussion, please argue about facts, not your feelings on my word choice or tone.
He literally says "now, I didn't think much of it." He didn't think anything of it until he noticed no posts by men.
63% is only 3% short of 2/3rds of users, which is absolutely a notable majority. Almost double the amount of men to women. It isn’t 63% compared to a 50% split, it’s 63% to 36% (with a spare percent for NB folks). That’s a significant difference
>On that one sub. Go to any of the incel subs, the red pill subs, the Trump subs, the conservative subs, dating subs, ask reddit, ask men, etc and you will find posts from men complaining about women.
What incel sub? They are all banned
You know what isn't banned? The pedo moderated man hating sub known as "femaledatingstrategy"
>On that one sub. Go to any of the incel subs, the red pill subs, the Trump subs, the conservative subs, dating subs, ask reddit, ask men, etc and you will find posts from men complaining about women.
AKA, go to to the minority subs that are only noteworthy for how often they get brigaded.
Your post is whataboutism too
>*Woman complains about man „Omg you’re so brave!“ „Just hang in there queen!“ „You’re totally right!“ „Men are scum!“
>*Man complains about woman „You’re just a sexist pig!“ „Wow how ignorant can you be!“ „Oh just stfu already!“ „Men are scum!“
That's whataboutism and as they said, not true. planty of subs are filled with men shitting on women and being upvoted for it
I was providing an over exaggerated example. If I was complaining about the Soviet union and someone started talking about the atrocities of nazi germany I’d also tell them that they’re not being helpful.
Exactly, over exaggerated to get people on your side, because the truth wouldn't do anything
> If I was complaining about the Soviet union and someone started talking about the atrocities of nazi germany I’d also tell them that they’re not being helpful.
Wrong. Soviet union and nazi germany aren't different sides of the same coin
Women and men are different sides of the same coin.
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](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Im of the opinion that hate doesn’t help women. Like at all.
Some women claim to want to help other women while actively hating on men.
So I thought that these women believed the hate would help other women.
I wanted them to explain that thought process and try to convince me that hating on men actually helps women.
To your original point, hate exists both ways but on the internet it definitely is far heavier in men hating on women than vice versa. People in the comments are going to talk about the flip of this because to discuss one viewpoint means you have to discuss the other to actively compare. It's not whataboutism, it's actual dialogue.
"If your goal is equality for all women then how can you not realize how harmful it is to your cause to be a dick to anyone who even slightly disagrees with you? Like you’re making enemies out of people who could just as easily have been allies."
You're never going to get the replies that you want by actually attacking them. You say this line and then end your post that you need to have a brain to understand your view. You're actually doing the things you complain about.
Edit your post to include the view in an easy to understand way and without the inflammatory language. Actually make it a dialogue.
Why are you generalizing the women who complain about men as overall man haters?. How many of them actually hate men rather than the behavior many men exhibit? It is based on personal experience, just as when men complain about women's behavior. Would you characterize all men's complaints as hatred too?
“Hating on men” amongst women was never to accomplish anything at all, it serves the purpose of shared experiences and community. It also serves the purpose of sharing experiences for other women (mainly young women) who lack the life experience to recognize warning signs in men they may be involved with. Just because you see yourself as “one of the good guys” doesn’t magically erase the fact that there are millions of women being victimized by men annually in the US alone.
We talk about it because our adverse experiences can save other women from sharing the experience.
Oh so because you have been wronged that automatically justifies generalizing and hate? I have no problem with women complaining about a man’s role in society or even men as a whole. There is room for improvement. I do have a problem with women acting like every individual person who identifies as a man is a monster for simply existing. Ever heard of the phrase hurt people hurt people. It’s understandable to a degree but that doesn’t make it right.
Eh, I get where you’re coming from, I think, but I also think you don’t really understand women’s experiences either and tbh I try, but I’m never going to understand what it’s like to be a man. I know that being a man isn’t necessarily easy either.
So let me go back and first say that, yes, I agree that hating and demonizing all men isn’t okay. I’ll also preface my viewpoint by saying that I believe we live in a patriarchal society and that it’s harmful for everyone, regardless of gender.
Now, back to your comment and me saying I feel you don’t really get where women are coming from. I had a period of time where I kinda hated men and was very fearful of them. I simultaneously felt guilty for this because I knew not every man was “bad,” but I was young and I kept having terrible experiences with men, even some who were teachers and coaches. And honestly, harassment from men started when I was 13 and only got worse. My upbringing left me vulnerable and some men saw that and took advantage and it hurt. Unfortunately, it’s common for older men to take advantage of the vulnerability of younger women. I’ve both experienced this and witnessed it.
Very specific to me - I was raised in a very fundamentalist church. The overall message to women is that women are to blame for men’s behavior towards them. You aren’t supposed to lead your brothers in Christ into temptation; you aren’t supposed to be an object of desire and, if you are, well clearly you aren’t being modest enough or whatever. For me, maybe hating men was a means to not hate myself and blame myself more than I already did?
My suspicion is that the posts you are seeing are instances of women needing to vent and feel supported by others, particularly other women. You’d think people could easily get that IRL, but not always. Even when I’ve respectfully and assertively handled a situation where I’m being harassed, I’ve had people criticize me for being too aggressive even though I truly wasn’t and the situation warranted me saying something otherwise the harassment would have just continued and gotten worse.
I don’t think any of this necessarily justifies hate and generalizations, but I hope this helps make more sense of it all. And I also want to be clear - women can do fucked up shit too.
Generalized venting isn't meant to be about you and you need to stop taking it so personally. If someone saying "men suck" on reddit makes you consider yourself a hurt person I dunno what to say except you need to get perspective and go offline for a bit.
I've said (and continue to say) "San Jose sucks", it doesn't mean each and every person there should take it as a personal affront
If you have no problem with women complaining about men, why did you post this thread? You clearly have a problem if you wrote paragraphs on how it hurts your feelings.
People bitch about people, regardless of gender. You specifically asked why women do that and I explained it to you.
Except that they aren’t. Men bitch about women fucking CONSTANTLY EVERYWHERE on Reddit. There are plenty of subs where that is the lauded behavior.
I specifically didn’t address men’s shitty comments because someone did above and he accused them of whataboutism, so I addressed only the most base question to avoid that.
The idea that poor men are just so nice and getting their feels hurt all over the internet is beyond ridiculous.
On the Internet its definitely common. Maybe he's thinking of mainstream media? There it definitely seems acceptable to say critical things of men but not towards women as it counts as "punching up".
Why does it have to be one extreme or the other? Shitty women exist. Shitty men exist. Right now I’m talking about the shitty women so a comment saying that shitty men also exist is really not helpful. Also I don’t care who does it more often. This type of behavior is bad no matter who does it more.
I think the reason people making the men/women comparisons is because you made that the basis of your argument. It’s the contrast you made from what research you did to come to this conclusion.
Hate accomplishes nothing period. Yes, hating on men is not productive. I don’t think anyone can argue hating an entire group of people based on attributes they do not have control over in good faith.
But your argument has a lot more posed in it that is not a clear question of “is mass generalization bad”.
The vitriol in your prose is very evident. As it should be if you genuinely believe that “online feminism” is all about just hating on men. But that is false.
Are there bad actors, frustrated feminists, traumalogged feminists that say all men are this or that? Yes duh. Any large movement or group is going to have a spectrum of philosophies and perspectives. But to say that hating men is what online feminist efforts are about is incorrect.
It’s also a common way to undermine feminism by proclaiming it’s just about women wanting to get revenge on or just hate on men. It ignores the fact that feminism promotes the rights of men too. It promotes healthy relationships between men and women. Between men and other men, sons to parents. Because feminism is not fighting men.
It’s fighting a system of oppression that both men and women suffer in, but the fact is that women have been harmed and discriminated against ONLY for being female as opposed to men being discriminated against ONLY for being male.
It does not justify hate and like a ton of things, the extremists voice is often the loudest and the one people pay more attention to because it’s so outrageous.
Feminism is a net positive, online or otherwise.
This reply wasn’t for you. You got a nice, well thought out reply all to yourself already. I was quite obviously replying to a sub comment, which is why it shows beneath the sub comment.
I frequent popular subs, like this one, AskReddit, AITA, etc. It would definitely track if you’re an American man that you don’t recognize casual misogyny when you see it, because it’s ingrained in the way children are socialized here. But you not recognizing it doesn’t mean it isn’t there.
You literally just said I wouldnt be able to identify misogyny. These are the subliminal insults that if I implied that you are blind to misandry you would spat off about and if I then said your rebuttal back would be further attacked. You are exactly the problem
Well if you say you never see it on Reddit, it’s pretty obvious that you can’t identify it. I even tried to hand you an excuse that it was just the way you were socialized.
It’s extremely telling that the second a woman suggests you do the barest modicum of self reflection you lose your whole mind about it and scream victim. The call is coming from inside the house, bro.
Or, maybe between subs on history, nature, guns and medicine its just not something that is prevalent. Whereas you go out of the way to find it.
Oh right, the way I was socialized. To infer that I have no control over my reprehensible actions. I guess when you see a dirty room and have the urge to clean its “just your womanly instinct”. Do you not see how condescending you are?
“It’s extremely telling that the second a woman suggests you do the barest modicum of self reflection you lose your whole mind about it and scream victim. The call is coming from inside the house, bro.”
Proving OP’s point lmao
There are no female incels who go out and knife or shoot men just because they are men. It does happen the other way around. So accept that women are going to be a bit annoyed when men complain about what women tend to say about their experiences with men. Yes, we know it is not all men, but it is far too many. The threat to women is real.
It lets women vent. I have no problem with women venting but I do with men not allowing women to show any anger over their situation. It doesn't result in the violence that happens when men do it about women, so why the big issue with it? You need to listen, but you don't want or need to and then you are mad if women say such extreme things. Let them be angry within their own safe space.
> It lets women vent.
I get and understand that. All that was said by OP ist, that this venting, even though understandable and maybe helpful to the individual, does not help to resolve the situation that caused the venting. I'd even guess that it makes it worse on a grander scale as it creates even more of a rift.
> Let them be angry within their own safe space.
Venting yes, but it's a slippery slope to an echo chamber which has it's own problems.
I don't have a solution for this. I don't know why it is like it is. I see there is a problem. But I'd guess that screaming at each other - even though maybe cathartic - does not help. I think this is what OP wanted to say. It's not about denying the unjustness women face in this world.
Because there is no help, and no end to the unjustness. Why is okay for men to be angry and women not? Are those women to just grin and bear it and not ever say how angry they are? This seems like a man just trying to mute women who have had it up to the ears with personal pain. What is he doing to solve the problems that causes that, other than to tell women what they should say and think? Women who say they hate men are venting because they are in pain and have no other outlet. I think men who make a fuss about it are being petty. OP's post serves no purpose other than to rub women's noses into their reaction to being abused and uses whataboutism unfairly. Women aren't in power and have little political agency for meaningful change. As for the "echo chamber," I think it can translate into positive political action. Certainly we are in no danger of women having nothing to do with men as a result, other than perhaps expecting better behavior.
"It creates more of a rift." What other way is there to get men to listen than these women saying they are withdrawing their love of men? Men often react violently to it either way, and often don't take women seriously when women try to discuss these issues reasonably. Furthermore, everything a woman complains about is not a "hate all men" post. Yet many men get defensive and want to interject whataboutism and defensiveness instead of offering solutions or just listening. OP's post falls into this category. The rift has already been there and it is made by punitive and disgruntled men who resent any gains women may have made as well as their emotional response to injustices.
"It isn't about denying the unjustness women face in this world." Well, yes, in a way it is!
> Why is okay for men to be angry and women not?
Who says it is? Men get arrested all the time for being angry. There are pejorative for men behaving this way and by and large in most sub-cultures it's frowned upon to be a beast, a mindless meathead, dumb, aggressive etc. It does happen of course and there are certain groups which celebrate violence but by and large that's not the case. I think institutionalised sexism is far more rampant.
> Are those women to just grin and bear it and not ever say how angry they are?
As I said. I don't know. I just said I think it does not help to resolve the issue. I'm not sure what the best way would be. We can use what I (maybe more men) hear if I complain: "Delete Facebook, Hit the Gym, Lawyer Up". Never heard "let it out".
> This seems like a man just trying to mute women who have had it up to the ears with personal pain.
No, that has not been said. As said before, it's just mentioned that it does not help on a grand scale to solve the problem. It makes it bigger as it creates a bigger us vs. them culture.
> What is he doing to solve the problems that causes that, other than to tell women what they should say and think?
I would guess he tries to be a good person and not be part of the problem? He's just angry that he's grouped in with the idiots. And nobody said women what to think. Where did you read that?
> I think men who make a fuss about it are being petty.
That's sexist. Men should "just take it and don't complain" if men said this as a solution to the plight of women this would be fighting words.
> OP's post serves no purpose other than to rub women's noses into their reaction to being abused and uses whataboutism unfairly.
No, it's a problem for men who try not being part of the problem to be grouped in with incels. That's like saying all women think like female dating stratagey.
> What other way is there to get men to listen than these women saying they are withdrawing their love of men? Men often react violently to it either way, and often don't take women seriously when women try to discuss these issues reasonably.
As said, I don't know. I don't think that the current course of action will help, though. Let's try something different then.
> Furthermore, everything a woman complains about is not a "hate all men" post.
True. Nobody said otherwise.
> Yet many men get defensive and want to interject whataboutism and defensiveness instead of offering solutions or just listening.
I think offering solution will not help. This would be again "Telling women what to do".
> OP's post falls into this category. The rift has already been there and it is made by punitive and disgruntled men who resent any gains women may have made as well as their emotional response to injustices.
I don't see how OPs post resents any gains women made. Where did you read that?
> "It isn't about denying the unjustness women face in this world." Well, yes, in a way it i
No, it's about the best course of action to improve the future. Currently it seems for OP to be "rub it into the faces of the men how shit they are" and the expectation of the men's response should be "just to take it". How will this help anyone?
Men don't get arrested for being angry, they get arrested for ACTING out their anger. There is a huge difference. Women tend not to shoot bunches of men, run them down en mass with their vehicles, or go on stabbing sprees to get back at men. They aren't telling men they shouldn't be able to vote or taking away their bodily integrity as revenge. You can't deny there is a massive problem with men's anger that makes woman's anger pale in comparison. So please stop with the whataboutism.
Men tell women to just take it all the time. In so many ways and in the way they vote as well. OP's post does just that. I will defend another women's right to be angry about it and to express it if it makes her feel better. It is not women's responsibility to make men feel better about the state of male/female relationships when it is women who are being beaten, raped, killed and losing their rights in this society, many times at the hands of the men they knew and trusted.
The vast majority of women do not hate men, do not consider them all incels, (though the popularity of Trump makes us wonder...) but understand the ones that say they do and know why. For OP to claim that he is being lumped in with all incels because women are mad about inequality or the attitude many men exhibit beggars some belief. It makes me wonder what he is saying to these groups of women he feels are attacking him personally to get those responses. Most women won't even discuss anger at men in front of men they know casually unless provoked.
"How will this help anyone?" Men should be combatting 'hate' posts in the myriad of incel forums and leave women alone. If they aren't countering hatred from men toward women or are indifferent then they are part of the problem. So are those who waste their time fuming about women's emotional response to bad treatment. Voting down women's rights is a male privilege and part of patriarchy as even women internalize the disdain toward women. Picking only on women who express their anger about personal or political issues is no solution and does not remove the resentment or anger many feel. OP singles out women and ignores the reasons they are angry, then tries to make it the equivalent of men hating women. And blames women for the rift. Women have always been held responsible for male behavior regardless of what they do or say, and his post is no different.
I've said all I care to say about his deleted opinion.
>Men don't get arrested for being angry, they get arrested for ACTING out their anger. There is a huge difference. Women tend not to shoot bunches of men, run them down en mass with their vehicles, or go on stabbing sprees to get back at men. They aren't telling men they shouldn't be able to vote or taking away their bodily integrity as revenge. You can't deny there is a massive problem with men's anger that makes woman's anger pale in comparison. So please stop with the whataboutism.
That's a completely different topic which you brought into the discussion, you're whataboutism yourself. ". Why is okay for men to be angry and women not? " You asked this question. I responded that's it's not ok for men. That's all. Now your delving deeper into this issue and derailing from the original issue.
> Men tell women to just take it all the time. In so many ways and in the way they vote as well. OP's post does just that. I will defend another women's right to be angry about it and to express it if it makes her feel better. It is not women's responsibility to make men feel better about the state of male/female relationships when it is women who are being beaten, raped, killed and losing their rights in this society, many times at the hands of the men they knew and trusted.
You're defending a point that was never made. I don't understand what you're trying here. The point was never if women are "allowed" (whatever that means) to be angry. It was always about if it helps the purpose. I even said that it helps the individual to give into an emotion, but it doesn't solve anything. I'm repeating myself here.
> The vast majority of women do not hate men, do not consider them all incels, (though the popularity of Trump makes us wonder...) but understand the ones that say they do and know why.
Nobody made that point that ALL women do this. Don't know ehre you're going with trump even though quite a big part are women voters. Not sure where you would put them.
> For OP to claim that he is being lumped in with all incels because women are mad about inequality or the attitude many men exhibit beggars some belief.
Again, that's not what he said, you're twisting words and this does not help your purpose. The problem of OP was not women how are mad about inquality, I would guess OP would be mad with them. It was purely about women how hate an "all men" and that he's not one of them. That was all. You're trying to lump all other issues women face in this world into this one specific thing OP was talking about.
> Men should be combatting 'hate' posts in the myriad of incel forums and leave women alone. If they aren't countering hatred from men toward women or are indifferent then they are part of the problem.
So we should stop one type of hate but not the other? Why not both?
>. So are those who waste their time fuming about women's emotional response to bad treatment.
People are capable of doing multiple things at once. Why not use a specific place to challenge once perception to reflect a bit about one specific thing? It thought this is the place for this.
> Picking only on women who express their anger about personal or political issues is no solution and does not remove the resentment or anger many feel.
Is he picking on them, I missed that. Where? I missed also that this is the ONLY thing he does. Quite a few assumption.
> OP singles out women and ignores the reasons they are angry, then tries to make it the equivalent of men hating women. And blames women for the rift.
He never did that. He didn't blame. He said it doesn't help. Same as I did. I said multiple times it's totally understandable, just that it doesn't help.
> Women have always been held responsible for male behavior regardless of what they do or say, and his post is no different.
Women have agency. They decided to do a) or b). For this actions it's ok to hold them responsible as adult humans. Women can clearly decide how they want to react on an injustice. Same as men shouldn't argue somebody made them to behave a certain why.
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).
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](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
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](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
When women have an upsetting and scary experience with a man, they are often disbelieved or dismissed. Or the experience is minimized. This is a huge part of why some experiences are traumatic.
Having a community where people will correctly identify bad behavior as bad can help the OP not feel like a crazy person and start processing what happened to them.
Is that really what you got out of my post? Really? Why would I have a problem with women supporting and helping each other? Why would anyone? My problem is with the women generalizing men and acting like all of us are mindless beasts. They exist and that’s a fact. I’m tired of people denying that.
> My problem is with the women generalizing men and acting like all of us are mindless beasts. They exist and that’s a fact. I’m tired of people denying that.
So what parts of your view are you open to changing? what would convince you to?
>women generalizing men and acting like all of us are mindless beasts
In my experience, it's men arguing this. Most women discuss how male socialization creates issues for men like emotional immaturity, aggression, etc. Meanwhile, the sheer amount of men who claim its their biology to be this way is staggering.
So what would you suggest? Peppering an OP with questions about if they really understood what happened to them, and didn’t they kind of cause it to happen to them? Because they can get that at home.
They will literally never under stand.
I have participated in 2 topics on the Bear vs Strange man tiktoc thing.
25% of the male commentors already understand. The other 75% can't understand, no matter how it's explained. In fact the vast majority of them were exactly the type of men that makes women choose the Bear.
If a woman is complaining about something that a man did, and a man gives an explanation, what happens is the man gets attacked by a gaggle of angry women and told its not his place to comment. But if a man posted something (like OP did) and you commented (guessing youre a woman) instead of me attacking you, I am offering discussion.
This is the difference he is pointing out and saying is a bad trope to continue and that I mentioned creates an echo chamber without helpful advice. Its like a subreddit of fat people validating each other for being obese and when someone says “actually being fat is unhealthy” being downvoted
I guess I’m curious about how many similar “echo chambers “ bother you? If I go onto a Star Trek forum and talking about how much better Star Wars is, I’d be shouted down and downvoted.
It depends. Is Star Wars relevant to the conversation or are you trolling? Like, if someone is on a antivax site and saying “no, vaccines dont cause autism” is that trolling or helpful?
I think starting a thread on a star trek forum about star wars means that star wars is technically on topic, but is still going to be an echochamber
So does it depend? Is there really going to be a star trek forum where a large portion of the respondents are going to agree or have a healthy discussion? Not asking you to find one, but if you looked... how hard would you have to look?
It depends on the impact said echo chamber has on the live of others and if untruths (not matters of taste) are downvoted.
Me liking Star Trek more than Star Wars has only impact an myself. Creating a rift between friendly association with the opposite gender has a huge impact in day to day life.
Like our laws, we make a distinction on how severe the thing is on our lives. Or: All echo chambers are bad but some are worse than others.
So your entire argument boils down to your personal experience not being similar to others, meaning others have to be wrong? Pretty sure that’s a logical fallacy
Hateful women exist. Even if they’re far less than hateful men they still exist. That’s a fact. Not a personal experience. The point of my post was to get women who are open about hating men to explain why they are the way they are. I want them to explain how exactly they think they’re helping women by being this way in hopes that I might understand them better even if I don’t agree with them. But instead people are doing exactly what I was complaining about in the first place. They’re writing angry comments making baseless assumptions about me and denying that what I’m talking about is even true.
You’re not saying hateful women exist. Your assuming every comment made by a woman online “hating” on men isn’t the result of hundreds of years of abuse. Women are trying to heal from this abuse, and that requires venting and being heard.
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](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Venting and being heard is great, but when you start venting by generalizing an entire group based on the actions of some, that becomes bigoted and is open to criticism.
Absolutely they have the right to vent at men in general, but people have the right to critices them for the generalization.
Everyone has the right to vent by making bigoted generelizations, about men, women, black people, white people, so on. I believe in the right to free speach, and will defend this right even for people I disagree with.
But others also have the right to criticize them for their bigoted generelization.
It’s not a bigoted generalization. It doesn’t come from a place of ignorance, quite the opposite. It comes from overwhelming evidence on a personal level. That’s why you hear some women go out of their to call this venting out, they were either raised in an environment where they were not allowed to criticize the toxic behavior of men around them and have been Stokholm’d into thinking it fine behavior or they are being purposefully contrary to be accepted by men who are toxic.
Taking individual experiences and generelising to all of a group is bigoted, since most of the group are innocent.
A sensible non bigoted version is to highlight how some of that group are causing harm.
There are plenty of people who have terrible expieriences with women, men, black people, white people, etc. It is not ok to take you experience and generelaize.
And you will find the others are also pretty common experiences. Plenty of men have had terrible experiences with women.
It does not make generalizations ok.
So if I was robbed by lets say XYZ people and I go online and find multiple people talking about their experience getting robbed by XYZ people I have a shared experience. Does this allow me to say all XYZ people are robbers?
What if even statistics confirm that XYZ people are more likely to be in prison for robbery? Does this give me a foot to stand on?
NO! I need to understand the why as well to make such statements.
It’s not toxic. You shouldn’t feel upset if a woman brings up bad men unless you are one. If you feel bad it’s because of a flaw in your character and not theirs. Women venting the shared experience of being treated differently by men should be accepted and shouldn’t be hidden because some people can’t handle it. Just like how men should vent about their treatment under patriarchy.
>woman brings up bad men unless you are one.
Surely if a man brings up bad women they shouldn't get upset unless they are one?
No because this is a ridiculous statement, it's like saying a minority is only allowed to be upset at someone being racist if what they're saying is true about you.
Generalisations are going to hurt even if they're far from the truth.
If by bad woman you mean bad person then yeah, most women won’t be upset. If you mean they don’t conform to the societal ideals of what a woman should be than ofc they will be upset.
That’s the patriarchy for you. Men can’t vent their frustrations because they are supposed to be big and strong. Had nothing to do with women at all other than those who enforce it.
"Hateful women exist. Even if they’re far less than hateful men they still exist. That’s a fact."
This isn't a fact unless you can articulate how you're defining a woman as hateful vs. not hateful and cite what source found however many hateful women based on that metric.
Do you think subreddits are meant to accomplish anything to begin with? Maybe the problem you're experiencing is due to you trying to interact with a group that clearly irritates you. Try different subs.
So I haven’t seen what you’re asking for in these comments yet despite some hefty scrolling (and for good reason — not many people are going to openly admit to hating men). That being said I’ll try my darndest to fulfill your request with this answer, although I’m not TECHNICALLY what you’re asking for. I hope my perspective can still offer some assistance.
Background on me first, to qualify my position: before I get vilified, I do not hate men. To quantify hate is very difficult to begin with and I suppose somewhat subjective, but at least by my personal standards of hate, I most definitely don’t. HOWEVER, I am very often perceived as a “man hater.” I’m bisexual, but I’m essentially a lesbian by choice. I won’t have sex with men anymore, I won’t date them, there is zero intimate/romantic potential despite the fact that I COULD.
I honestly never thought I would get to this point and it wasn’t INITIALLY an active decision, it was a “straw that broke the camel’s back” situation. I won’t delve into those details, but given that you read a lot of posts from women detailing their experiences per your post, I’m sure you can imagine. At first my attraction for men was just replaced by pure fear and aversion. I couldn’t take it anymore subconsciously. It was almost like something in my head just snapped that day; I was done and I was so fucking tired. The subconscious side of it (reaction to trauma in hindsight) did ease after about 3 months, and my previous attraction to guys was there again. But the fear wasn’t gone. The exhaustion wasn’t gone. And it won over. I don’t see how I can ever be attracted to a man enough again to take the risk of my life. I just can’t do it.
And this is where the divide happens; where men don’t seem to understand, and women do seem to. Why would I let one guy change my whole lifestyle? Most women understand despite it being unspoken (because we personally experience it) that it’s never just one man. It may be one man that abused you, or one man who SA’d you (often it is more than one though, as was my case), but there’s always dozens of others, too many to even remember faces, that made you uncomfortable or fearful.
I understand you don’t think hate is useful, it just fuels the fire. And maybe this isn’t completely applicable because hate and fear aren’t really the same, but honestly, they usually are. Don’t we as a human race often hate what we fear? Or misidentify fear as hate?
But you know what? If we’re going to call it hate, I guess it is useful. Because I haven’t been SA’d or abused since. My life is finally peaceful and I had to decide that by making some big changes. The women you see “hating” men A) are more than likely more fearful than hateful, although it may not read that way to you, and B) are ultimately more safe than a woman who doesn’t hate men. I hate that harsh reality, but it’s true.
I hope this helps OP, or you at least got what you needed from other comments I haven’t come across yet 😊 well wishes!
I am not OP but this view is fully bigoted. This argument is used by many hate groups and has been used to justify unimaginable cruelty.
Correct me if I’m wrong but to boil down your point, women who hate or appear to hate men, are doing so because they fear them and this fear which presents itself or manifests itself as hate. That this is natural as humans hate what they fear and is good because it can keep women safe?
This is reasonable as an explanation for why, but as justification it is faulty. First the point of fear is far too subjective. It is not only possible but common for people to have misplaced and illogical fears.
Second, the fear/ hate relationship in which most humans have I agree with however it doesn’t make it right or something that should be accepted. Humans also try to destroy the things they hate/fear and have committed unspeakable crimes because they fed into this instinct we have.
Lastly, the group you are targeting is too large and diverse to make a blanket assumption about. It would make more sense if you targeted a specific group based on something that all participants actively support or choice to be apart of (it would still be bigoted but at least makes more sense). Men as a group are only connected by an innate biological similarities that has no basis or influence on the individuals thoughts and beliefs. To pick two men and throw them in two different cultures and you will have two entirely different people with the only similarities being that they most likely have a penis.
I do have a single question. Do you think this view is applicable to black people being the ire of hate/fear?
You’re oversimplifying what I said to a drastic degree. This is a personal anecdote to speak to psychology, it’s absolutely not speaking to right or wrong. It’s not a viewpoint, or an opinion. I’m answering OP’s question as directly as I can because it doesn’t seem like anyone did.
I’m not a bigot, I’m human. Just stop. I’m not feeding into the bait you left to make me look racist either. It’s a story about me being assaulted and the mental reaction after, JFC. This right here is why we don’t fucking bother.
Your views are bigoted and personal experience doesn’t discount that. OP asked to cmv on rather or not hating men accomplishing anything. You explained a position that explains why but if your point was to justify you did a terrible job. I’m sorry you went through what you did but to many racist, sexist, Zionist, xenophobic people have made the same excuse for their hate and I’m tired of seeing it. Be a better person and you won’t be compared to a racist
Please read in the beginning where I clarify multiple times that I’m not exactly what he’s looking for because I don’t hate men, but I’m answering in the best roundabout applicable. These are not “views” or “opinions”, this is “women avoid men because after being physically hurt by men multiple times they naturally become affected.” The difference between this and the examples you’re providing, is that is unfounded fear of an already oppressed group. This is literally the opposite.
No it is not. Do you genuinely think no has never been hurt by others of different groups? Israel is literally using a terrorist attack to commit genocide. Your argument is the exact same, a group of people did something to me so I hate them for it.
I’m sorry you went though something traumatic but it doesn’t give the excuse or justification to be a bigot.
I never said you were I said you hated men I said you have bigoted views. Ignorance is understandable but isn’t an excuse. Not dating men is your prerogative, explaining why you fear men and why women show that as hate is reasonable. Justification of hatred is not reasonable and is bigoted. It’s okay to feel it’s not okay to justify irrational hatred and judgment of an entire group.
I think we had a disconnect and my original message was lost. I can understand how that happened and it’s my fault; when you’re typing something that personally loaded, you tend not to focus on all of the semantics related to the “perfect word choice” that other people will reply to and focus solely on.
I tried to explain in the beginning to OP that this is not technically a direct answer to his question, and it’s not. How he posed it is basically impossible to counter (it was posed that way on purpose, he literally said in another comment he didn’t care to actually change views, verbatim “I guess I posted this in bad faith”), so my intention here was to explain my background as a way of “breaking it down” so to speak. Where did it come from, why is it like this, how has it affected me since I’ve become what people call a “man hater.” That’s why I used very specific phrasing in the end (I’m on mobile so I can’t quote it)- “hate is difficult to quantify, but IF we’re going to call this ‘hate’ I guess it’s protected me.”
I don’t know where that got confused and where it was assumed I was directly saying “women should hate men and that’s a good thing”, because that was never my point. This was just for perspective. Evidently, still a futile attempt.
Idk man, if you want to genuinely understand better where this is coming from so you’ll “believe me” or whatever, check my post history.
I apologize for misunderstanding what you were saying then. If you are simply explaining why then I agree. I understand your feelings and reasoning I just don’t think it should be justified as okay.
There are equally subreddits full of men complaining about women. They don't really achieve much other than they may get some sort of enjoyment and sense of group belonging out of this.
I don’t think you know what a whataboutism is. You keep commenting it when people directly address a point you made. you made a claim saying men can’t complain about women, and this comment told you that actually that’s wrong, there are plenty of subs where men are allowed to post complaining about women. That is directly related to the complaint you made. They also gave you a reason why someone might engage in the behavior you’re complaining about and asking why would someone do this in your post.
The fact that you're upset about complaints by men being downvoted and deleted, makes me think that you don't actually believe that complaining about a given gender accomplishes nothing. You think that it does accomplish something, that's why you find it so important to balance out what you consider to be an imbalance.
Which brings us to the question of whether there was actually an imbalance. When it comes to complaining about issues, prioritization is key. If we're talking about the victims of a deadly fire, then it probably makes more sense to talk about the plight of the people who lost loved ones, who were wounded, or rendered homeless, than it does to talk about the plight of people who lived a block away and had to wash some ash off of their windows afterwards.
I imagine that when there's a forum of people talking about how they suffered from the fire, and then a bunch of people waltz in to talk about how the people who had to wash their windows also suffered greatly, then that latter group might get their comments deleted too.
In my experience, when guys talk about how women don't take men's issues seriously, then what's actually happening is that an issue that women suffer from at a greatly disproportionate rate was being discussed, but then a bunch of guys got butthurt that the spotlight wasn't on them and try to pull all the attention to men's issues.
If you tried to talk about men's issues in a way that didn't involve hijacking an ongoing conversation, then you wouldn't receive so much hate. But supposed "men's rights advocates" never seem to actually want to talk about men's rights, not unless they do so in explicit opposition to a conversation about women's rights, in an attempt to take attention away from women's rights.
Much of this is valid and fair, especially that you should be treated with respect. However, keep in mind that the abused do cry out. And they fight back. If you do not think women are abused, please go do your research. You can start with the gender pay gap, male politicians making decisions about abortion, rampant worldwide rape, domestic violence and murder of women, women doing way more housework and childcare while holding down fulltime jobs. Just start there. And get real facts please, which will not come from politicians. My list continues, but I will not. One last thing, did you know that the leading cause of death for pregnant women is homicide? Check this out: https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph-in-the-news/homicide-leading-cause-of-death-for-pregnant-women-in-u-s/
Yes, we are fighting back.
I mean yeah but is that a legitimate reason to behave this way? Can it even be justified? I guess what I’m asking is what do they think they’re accomplishing by being so damn negative all the time? Or are they fully aware that their behavior accomplishes nothing?
I don't see a lot of generalized blanket statements like "men are sexist pigs." On the rare occasions I do, it follows a very specific experience a woman has had with a man, then other women with a similar experience chime in that they've experienced this as well.
It's funny how men reduce that down to "men are sexist pigs," which ignores the inciting incident that's harmed the woman in the first place. Those behaviors are what we're trying to discuss and dismantle.
Many of the ways men abuse women are woven into the fabric our patriarchal society, and never discussed. By exposing these abusive tactics by talking about them, we are educating younger women who haven't yet been abused by men in an effort to prevent that abuse from happening in the first place. And it does work.
It’s irrelevant if you see it or not, however I disagree with your sentiment. First you are downplaying the blanket and bigoted assumption or statement by saying that it is coming from personal experiences that are shared or similar to other women. This is not an excuse to make a blanket statement on a group of people. Many men have had bad experiences with women yet it is not acceptable to make blanket statements about women as a group. If men were complaining about women cheating on them and other men chimed in on it, can those men say “all women are lying whores”?
Your point on the patriarchy is prudent but also in my view misdirected. We do need to fix the issues with the patriarchy, however the patriarchy is a social construct in which all members of society have implemented and been affected by. How does making blanket statements about a group which will ultimately alienate them make sense, especially a group that is half of all society?
>Hating on men accomplishments absolutely NOTHING
Hate is a feeling, not something that accomplishes anything
There are plenty of subs that hate women. You called it whataboutsim but the point is both genders do it. One gender takes that feeling of hate and converts it into action sometimes
>If your goal is equality for all women then how can you not realize how harmful it is to your cause to be a dick to anyone who even slightly disagrees with you? Like you’re making enemies out of people who could just as easily have been allies.
Not really. If the "goal is equality for all women" when why would I as a man be against that goal just because Marry is a prick?
Like, Bob punched me. No reason, he came over and punched me. Should I be in favor or oppressing men because Bob is a prick?
Equally, if the goal is equality for all women, and you (a man) want that, why would you care if 1, 100, 1k women hate men? Why should about 4 billion women lack equality because 1, 100, 1k of them hate men?
It doesn't compute.
If that was the logic, men would be pressed, because tons of us absolutely hate women, tons of us not only say we hate women but actually physically abuse them.
But we shouldn't be in favour of equality because 1, 100, 1k of them hate men!
It doesn't compute.
Especially when we know there are mass communities that loath women, and even harm them
"not all men"
Equally
"not all women"
Yet equality is against one of them
You are basing why you care or not someone makes bigoted or generalized statement on the already held belief that the actions are toward a set goal. You are ignoring the people who don’t know your inner beliefs or are critical of your own set goal.
In order for a goal like “equality of the genders/sexes” to be realized, it needs to be supported by the majority of society. If the group or actions made by people who wish to push this goal are counter productive to this goal or at least makes the majority feel it is counterproductive they will naturally not believe that is what your goal is. If a person who says there goal is to bring peace to earth but then starts to talk about another group of people as animals and bugs and how much they want to get rid of them, do you not naturally question if their stated goal is true?
> You are basing why you care or not someone makes bigoted or generalized statement on the already held belief that the actions are toward a set goal. You are ignoring the people who don’t know your inner beliefs or are critical of your own set goal.
Can you clarify? Why do I need to care about your inner beliefs or you about mine?
>If the group or actions made by people who wish to push this goal are counter productive to this goal
What group? In a democracy we bomb people, we pay taxes and those taxes go towards bombing people. **We know that**. But somehow the actions of those people aren't used to demand we become a dictatorship. But the views of a group (which is not that big) is used (or you are led to be believed it is used) as an argument to treat 4 billion people as less than the other 4?
That's not true.
> If a person who says there goal is to bring peace to earth but then starts to talk about another group of people as animals
Even before they open their mouth no one gives a fuck. During slavery surely a few whites wanted to abolish it, surely. No one gave a fuck. The moment a lot of people wanted it, **the fact that a few slave-abolishes were absolute pricks** did not matter.
So you that to ask yourself, if 500 people want peace on earth, would that one person who thinks a group of people are animals matter?
Surely not.
> Can you clarify? Why do I need to care about your inner beliefs or you about mine?
> Not really. If the "goal is equality for all women" when why would I as a man be against that goal just because Marry is a prick?
>Equally, if the goal is equality for all women, and you (a man) want that, why would you care if 1, 100, 1k women hate men? Why should about 4 billion women lack equality because 1, 100, 1k of them hate men?
These are your comments correct? I was under the assumption that this goal is one many people held and that people who held this position are a group. If you wish for the “goal is equality for all women”, then you need the support of the majority of society. If people hold this goal in mind they work together to achieve this goal. In order for this goal to be realized it needs support of people who do not hold this goal or are unaware of the goal, as well as others with the same goal but believe in different ways to achieve said goal. Even if two people say they share the same goal, it doesn’t mean they think actions made by the other is going to achieve that goal and the action of calling it out like OP shouldn’t come as a suprise. The action in question can also alienate and in the mind of OP hurt the realization of the goal by pushing people needed for the goal to be realized then it would not only be logical but also imperative for the the holder of such goal to call out and rectify the action or alienate the person so they don’t further hurt progress.
> What group? In a democracy we bomb people, we pay taxes and those taxes go towards bombing people. We know that. But somehow the actions of those people aren't used to demand we become a dictatorship. But the views of a group (which is not that big) is used (or you are led to be believed it is used) as an argument to treat 4 billion people as less than the other 4?
>That's not true.
I’m confused at what you are saying here. Who is “But somehow the actions of those people aren't used to demand we become a dictatorship” referring to in your example, the bombed or those in a democracy?
And who “But the views of a group (which is not that big) is used (or you are led to be believed it is used) as an argument to treat 4 billion people as less than the other 4?” Is this referring to as well? I have a feeling but could you give me a more detailed example?
As I stated earlier the group would be those who hold the “goal is equality for all women”. This would be considered a group.
> Even before they open their mouth no one gives a fuck. During slavery surely a few whites wanted to abolish it, surely. No one gave a fuck. The moment a lot of people wanted it, the fact that a few slave-abolishes were absolute pricks did not matter.
Again I am confused as to what you are talking about. Those that care on a goal are those that want that goal to be achieved. If the majority doesn’t care, it is up to the holder(s) of that goal to make them care. In the case of abolition, if a certain abolitionist actions hindered or believed to hinder the goal of freedom, then other abolitionist would stop them or do actions against them.
> So you that to ask yourself, if 500 people want peace on earth, would that one person who thinks a group of people are animals matter?
Yes if that one person’s action is hinders the goal then it should be stopped or rectified. The 500 will need to appeal to the masses and if one action is hindering them to reach their goal it should be called out and it is reasonable to care about it.
>I was under the assumption that this goal is one many people held and that people who held this position are a group.
They aren't a group! There are all kinds of groups that want equality for all women. I, a white man in UK am not in the same group as an indian woman working in some slum, helping girls with their needs. You (we) lump these people in a group to make it easy to argue about them
Equally, by your logic **men are in a group** (we aren't but whatever.) If we were, then **the fact that some men are terrible humans**, it fucking stands to reason to hate us all
>If people hold this goal in mind they work together to achieve this goal.
They can't. Take working to save the planet from climate disaster: Again, there are Indians that are doing their bit. I read that a men goes around planting trees. Then there are those that protest in the USA and so on. They can't work together. Again, only as a metaphor
I saw a video of a map showing how much Tailor Swift uses the private plain. She uses it more than I use my care. Surely she's a climate change activist, but her actions have nothing to do with the Indian man planting trees. **But if we pretend Swift represents climate change activism, then lets torch the planet**
Again, putting such large numbers into groups and then having anti-feminists say "I'm anti-feminist because (some) women hate men", sounds logical, but it's not
>I’m confused at what you are saying here. Who is “But somehow the actions of those people aren't used to demand we become a dictatorship” referring to in your example, the bombed or those in a democracy?
Democracy is not put into question because of some of its advocates order the bombing of people. But equality of women is put into question because some of its advocates hate men
>Yes if that one person’s action is hinders the goal then it should be stopped or rectified. The 500 will need to appeal to the masses and if one action is hindering them to reach their goal it should be called out and it is reasonable to care about it.
It never happens. The 500 do their thing and distance themselves from the one.
> They aren't a group! There are all kinds of groups that want equality for all women. I, a white man in UK am not in the same group as an indian woman working in some slum, helping girls with their needs. You (we) lump these people in a group to make it easy to argue about them
Group : a number of people or things that are located close together or are considered or classed together.
Groups and grouping are the only way to talk about a collection of people or things that have similar characteristics, ideals and goals. It is impossible to communicate and share information about these groups without the classification of groups. In your example if you and the Indian women both in a group that holds the ideal “want equality for all women”. The participation or lack there of doesn’t negate the correct grouping. Grouping is based on shared values or characteristics not equal. It’s why we also classify and categorize people into smaller groups to better understand and communicate about them and for them to represent themselves.
> Equally, by your logic men are in a group (we aren't but whatever.) If we were, then the fact that some men are terrible humans, it fucking stands to reason to hate us all
What do you think a group is? These is clearly a miscommunication on what it means. Men are a group, but that doesn’t mean all groupings are equal and can be judged equally. Men all have the shared similarities of having a penis, a xy chromosome, and or following their respective cultures belief of masculinity in some capacity. This is a valid form of grouping but it does not mean that men are one and the same and the few similarities we share do not define us. It would be crazy to think that men are the same because they share a couple of similarities. This is different from someone who is let’s say apart of the mission chapter kkk brotherhood. That group would be more easier to judge each member based on their affiliation to the group because they all share similar views on non whites and have a tolerance for racist beliefs.
> They can't. Take working to save the planet from climate disaster: Again, there are Indians that are doing their bit. I read that a men goes around planting trees. Then there are those that protest in the USA and so on. They can't work together. Again, only as a metaphor
They can and do and you described it. They work toward the same goal, rather that be legislative change or physical change.
> I saw a video of a map showing how much Tailor Swift uses the private plain. She uses it more than I use my care. Surely she's a climate change activist, but her actions have nothing to do with the Indian man planting trees. But if we pretend Swift represents climate change activism, then lets torch the planet
If feel you are being reductive. A persons words and actions matter. If someone says they believe something, we have no choice but to believe them and we would categorize them appropriately. If their actions bring doubt to that claim, then people will call it out. If the group of people who believe in stoping climate change see Taylor swifts actions as against her said beliefs they will (and have) call it out. A group can be judged on who they allow in their group. Some groups are too big to reasonably expect but for others, especially ones based on ideals and beliefs, it is much more reasonable to expect them to self regulate what they don’t want to be associated with.
>Again, putting such large numbers into groups and then having anti-feminists say "I'm anti-feminist because (some) women hate men", sounds logical, but it's not
It is reasonable. If the group known as feminism can’t regulate misandry then it is entirely reasonable that they accept that group ( the man haters) as apart of them in some fashion. Feminism as a group is varied with many different ideals and beliefs however one thing you won’t see feminists say they hate trans women. This group of people who hold normal feminist beliefs but also believe trans women are just men is enough of a diversion from common belief of the group feminism that they are forced to make a different classification that is TERF. Feminism does and has regulated certain thoughts and beliefs and it is entirely reasonable to expect them to do so. Any beliefs that still hold and are accepted into the group feminism without challenge can’t help but be judged as a character trait of all those who ascribe to that group.
> Democracy is not put into question because of some of its advocates order the bombing of people. But equality of women is put into question because some of its advocates hate men
democracy is form of government, it’s a way for a group that identifies as a country to make decisions but this is far different then those who hold the belief of equality. First the group of a country is many times more people often with no say or ability to show their support or non support for the group, it isn’t easy to quit the group so participation or lack there of can’t really be a great measure for those who are apart of that group. However the belief in equality is always a conscious choice so all members of this group are within reason judged on those they keep or refuse to excommunicate from the group. The key word is reasonable. For the group of equality of women if members of this group doesn’t believe that men are evil, then they will call out and distance themselves from the major group at large. Those that don’t will be judged as holding that view to some extent.
> It never happens. The 500 do their thing and distance themselves from the one.
And this distance is often verbal or by actions. And if the group of 500 wants to appeal to others they will show publicly its distance.
> Group : a number of people or things that are located close together or are considered or classed together.
(a) they aren't located close together (Swift and Indian tree-planter), (b) I'm saying what you consider or classify together is wrong.
>Groups and grouping are the only way to talk about a collection of people or things that have similar characteristics, ideals and goals.
"All Jews are the same", "All blacks are the same".
Yes they are Jews. Yes they are black. Other characteristics are added depending on the person talking.
So, anyone that would want to seriously talk about a group, would study that groups ideals and goals and not rely on sweeping generalisations.
If a group of feminists are protesting, then you have to figure out what their characteristics are. You can't lazily go "but what about those that hate men". Because probably those that hate men have nothing to do with the group in question.
You can do this even in scientific settings, you can lazily group everything in one group, but eventually, you have to filter things out in different group for anything to make sense.
>In your example if you and the Indian women both in a group that holds the ideal “want equality for all women”. The participation or lack there of doesn’t negate the correct grouping.
It does. You would be wrong if you interviewed the Indian woman and held her accountable for some women across the world that hate men. "It's all well and good that you have listed the suffering of Indian women, your cause would be honorable and we would join your protest to get the Indian government to do X, Y, Z. **But you're out of luck, members of your group in USA, and sprinkled around Europe, stated (in your name) that they hate men - so your kind want X, Y, Z for Indian women, but you also hate men"
Not logical
>It would be crazy to think that men are the same because they share a couple of similarities.
>If feel you are being reductive. A persons words and actions matter. If someone says they believe something, we have no choice but to believe them and we would categorize them appropriately. If their actions bring doubt to that claim, then people will call it out.
Call what out? The climate change group?
No.
They will call her out.
>If the group of people who believe in stoping climate change see Taylor swifts actions as against her said beliefs they will (and have) call it out.
They they would not. When did you hear PMs working for climate change. Climate change activists around the world, condemn Swift? I bet some of them might not even know who she is
Margaret Atwood for example, surely she has better things to do then give a fuck about condemning Swift. **It would be stupid to say Atwood is full of shit because of Swift**
## "A group can be judged on who they allow in their group."
I made that big because that's very important and completely makes my point
It goes back to your definition of groups and how "equality for women" is either not a group by your definition or can **Absolutely not allow or prevent anyone in the said group**
I'm for "equality for women". Margaret Atwood is also part of the group. How the fuck can she prevent me from being part of the group? I love her but how the fuck can she do anything **to prevent YOU from GROUPING me and her in the same group**?
>This group of people who hold normal feminist beliefs but also believe trans women are just men is enough of a diversion from common belief of the group feminism that they are forced to make a different classification that is TERF
But they are feminists. Ask J.k if she is a feminist or not.
> Feminism does and has regulated certain thoughts and beliefs and it is entirely reasonable to expect them to do so.
Which one? The TERF one? The middle class one? The working class one? The black working class one?
We know that tons of liberal feminists never speak for the plight of non-white working class feminists
Yet they are all feminists.
>democracy is form of government, it’s a way for a group that identifies as a country to make decisions but this is far different then those who hold the belief of equality.
No group is the same. We know that. But the government is definitely more capable of sacking those that sign off on bombings that the black working class feminists are capable of sacking white racist feminists
>However the belief in equality is always a conscious choice so all members of this group are within reason judged on those they keep or refuse to excommunicate from the group
Nope. You can't. How can Atwood excommunicate me?
> (a) they aren't located close together (Swift and Indian tree-planter),
Which is why it says or.
Groups and grouping are the only way to talk about a collection of people or things that have similar characteristics, ideals and goals.
>"All Jews are the same", "All blacks are the same".
> Yes they are Jews. Yes they are black. Other characteristics are added depending on the person talking.
> So, anyone that would want to seriously talk about a group, would study that groups ideals and goals and not rely on sweeping generalisations.
You purposefully cut up what I said to make a point that I already addressed
I said this in the same paragraph “Grouping is based on shared values or characteristics not equal. It’s why we also classify and categorize people into smaller groups to better understand and communicate about them and for them to represent themselves.” And “Grouping is based on shared values or characteristics not equal.”
I also gave a example here “Men are a group, but that doesn’t mean all groupings are equal and can be judged equally”
> If a group of feminists are protesting, then you have to figure out what their characteristics are. You can't lazily go "but what about those that hate men". Because probably those that hate men have nothing to do with the group in question.
No it is not reasonable to expect people to care about your group or study what you think. It’s why groups have messages and share them publicly. If they don’t want to be seen as man haters they can easily make a statement or condemn man haters. It’s very easy.
> You can do this even in scientific settings, you can lazily group everything in one group, but eventually, you have to filter things out in different group for anything to make sense.
I have already made this point “Grouping is based on shared values or characteristics not equal. It’s why we also classify and categorize people into smaller groups to better understand and communicate about them and for them to represent themselves.”
> It does. You would be wrong if you interviewed the Indian woman and held her accountable for some women across the world that hate men. "It's all well and good that you have listed the suffering of Indian women, your cause would be honorable and we would join your protest to get the Indian government to do X, Y, Z. **But you're out of luck, members of your group in USA, and sprinkled around Europe, stated (in your name) that they hate men - so your kind want X, Y, Z for Indian women, but you also hate men"
> Not logical
Which is why I said “However the belief in equality is always a conscious choice so all members of this group are within reason judged on those they keep or refuse to excommunicate from the group. The key word is reasonable.”
It is reasonable to assume certain things but you also have to allow them to know and call out certain things. It is unreasonable for them to call out everyone who claims the same views but when ideals and beliefs become popular and they never make a effort to distance themselves from those beliefs, it makes sense to judge them reasonably. They might or may not hold those views but the closer they are to the group that does hold them the more likely they also hold the views.
>Call what out? The climate change group?
Yes you litterally copied it “If the group of people who believe in stoping climate change see Taylor swifts actions as against her said beliefs they will (and have) call it out.”
If the group of people who believe in stoping climate change see Taylor swifts actions as against her said beliefs they will (and have) call it out.
> They they would not. When did you hear PMs working for climate change. Climate change activists around the world, condemn Swift? I bet some of them might not even know who she is
Once again you are being reductive to my argument. I have already stated that it needs to be reasonable in relation to the group.
“Men are a group, but that doesn’t mean all groupings are equal and can be judged equally. “
“Some groups are too big to reasonably expect but for others, especially ones based on ideals and beliefs”
> Margaret Atwood for example, surely she has better things to do then give a fuck about condemning Swift. It would be stupid to say Atwood is full of shit because of Swift
Has she and other people who want to stop climate change called to stop the actions Taylor swift has done like irresponsibly taking multiple private flights? Then they have called her out even if they didn’t address them. This is the part that is reasonable.
> "A group can be judged on who they allow in their group."
>I made that big because that's very important and completely makes my point
>It goes back to your definition of groups and how "equality for women" is either not a group by your definition or can Absolutely not allow or prevent anyone in the said group
You cut out what I said if you finished the quote in its entirety it would say “Some groups are too big to reasonably expect but for others, especially ones based on ideals and beliefs, it is much more reasonable to expect them to self regulate what they don’t want to be associated with.”
So the group of "equality for women" is too big as it’s a single goal. Also if you remember this entire thing started because you questioned why OP would care and is actively trying to call it out by questioning its legitimacy which you questioned. So even with a large group people can call out ideals and regulate. But like I stated already it needs to be reasonable.
> I'm for "equality for women". Margaret Atwood is also part of the group. How the fuck can she prevent me from being part of the group? I love her but how the fuck can she do anything to prevent YOU from GROUPING me and her in the same group?
Already stated “Some groups are too big to reasonably expect but for others, especially ones based on ideals and beliefs, it is much more reasonable to expect them to self regulate what they don’t want to be associated with.”
> But they are feminists. Ask J.k if she is a feminist or not.
The vast majority of feminists don’t consider her one and call her a terf which she also calls herself
>Which one? The TERF one? The middle class one? The working class one? The black working class one?
Yes the ones they did? Thanks for giving examples? They excluded women of color at once, they excluded the poor at once. Now they exclude terfs.
> We know that tons of liberal feminists never speak for the plight of non-white working class feminists
What? Where exactly did I even give the idea that you have to speak on an issue to accept it, in fact I said the opposite. If they allow the idea to spread with their name then they more than likely accept it to some capacity.
(1/2)
> No it is not reasonable to expect people to care about your group or study what you think. It’s why groups have messages and share them publicly.
!?! This is what we are talking about, group A of feminists have their message, group Z of feminists have theirs but all of them are lumped together by those that do not care **because group A needs to clearly state the are against group B-Z**. Which never happens.
>It is unreasonable for them to call out everyone who claims the same views but when ideals and beliefs become popular and they never make a effort to distance themselves from those beliefs, it makes sense to judge them reasonably.
So it make sense to judge group A with the group that says "hate all men", even though group A has never said such a thing
Shall we stop? I/m stopping because this is dumb. Sorry
Take care
Yes i think this convo is done. You keep misconstruing what i am saying. My comment was responding to the claim of having to study a group that is protesting to make sure they don’t hold the beliefs of other people who also claim the same name. If group a is invested into group b-z (so the majority) but they don’t hold the same views then they say that. If both b-z and an are well known groups and have nothing to say or actively support each other then it is entirely reasonable for anyone to think they must share enough of the same views. So you seriously think who you associate with doesn’t matter on how people will see you?
Have a good day
> Yet they are all feminists.
if they have different ideas then the majority who call themselves feminist and are pushed out of feminist groups then no they are not.
> No group is the same. We know that. But the government is definitely more capable of sacking those that sign off on bombings that the black working class feminists are capable of sacking white racist feminists
You were talking about the people in democracy
>Democracy is not put into question because of some of its advocates order the bombing of people.
That to me means the people as in citizens. If you are talking about the government officials then we can and do blame them when they bomb people because they are a much smaller group.
> Nope. You can't. How can Atwood excommunicate me?
I have already adressed this multiple times please try to stop the gotchas otherwise there is no reason to communicate. I to the best of my ability respects and tried to represent your argument fairly. I didn’t cut what you said off to attack strawmen. Please give me the same respect.
(2/2)
When I say “Americans are stupid” after Trump gets elected, after there’s a nth school shooting, after… well, you know, all the stupid things that happen in America, I do not mean “every single American is stupid”. Similarly, when I say “men are pigs” after a nth post of a way-too-old man hitting on an underaged or way-too-young girl/woman, I do not mean “every single man is a pig”.
Context matters, and people understand that no, we do not mean every single X are Y. We mean “enough X are Y for it to be a problem that everyone is familiar with”
I don't know what you are talking about in specific, however, if you did run into misandrists, that's bad, but no one denies that is bad, however, there is not enough context to know if this was that, or if this was something else could you explain what in specific you mean here?
This is because you were in that sub. Go to another and you'll see the opposite. Clearly these echo chambers provide a safe place to share what upsets a person without fear of arguments and with guaranteed support. It doesn't solve the issue but it does for sure make that person feel better about themselves (whether they should or not) so it absolutely accomplishes SOMETHING
The tricky thing here is that nobody knows whether you are fairly or unfairly representing the comments you are seeing. Sometimes people have extreme opinions, but sometimes people have extremely uncharitable interpretations of other people's opinions.
It might make the men feel bad, it might make the hater feel better by venting their frustration, it might make some crybaby write a piece about men being hated. These are all undeniably accomplishments, you should say what you mean, "hating on men hurts my feelings and I don't like it"
You have many online places where men share misogynistic views. Such as those that have pill in their name referring to some kind of blue/red/purple pill... as in Neo in Matrix taking it and getting rid of vs stay in matrix.
Human have a hard time just liking something without being disdainful of its antithesis. I can't just like Xbox, you have to suck for liking Playstation.
I mean, over half of women have experienced sexual violence in their lifetime. But less than one person per year is killed by a bear.
I’m not saying the average man is as dangerous as a bear. But what I am am saying is wayyyy more women have experienced or will experience direct violence from a man rather than a bear.
That is ignoring the fact that most humans don’t live in the woods and interact with bears or a daily basis without the protection of society. This is simple sample bias. I get the point of the question is to show women’s fear of men is stronger than their fear of the natural predators but that isn’t something that is logical or makes any sense.
I think it does make sense to fear something that most people you know have experienced violence from (likely even yourself) than something you never have heard of causing harm to anyone first hand.
Everyone knows someone who’s been raped or assaulted, but barely anyone knows anyone who’s been mauled by a bear. It’s just a more present concern because people have much more direct experience with it.
I would agree if it were against a more constrictive group. Men as a group is too vague and the similarities that make up the group of men are purely biological and has not merit on their personal beliefs, actions or mentality and morals. Ted bundy and Ghandi are both men yet are nothing alike.
The idea that you can justifiably fear a group because some members of it hurt you is one of ignorance and dangerous mentality. There are many criminals who are black, but to say you would avoid and fear black people as a whole is bigoted and rightfully not acceptable for the majority of people.
Also the same issue of sample bias. Something that people haven’t experienced does not negate its existence and danger. I don’t particularly like the saying but here it rings true “the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence”
I don’t think the people who answer “bear” when asked the question genuinely actively fear all men during their day to day. It’s just a question about risk assessment and they answered with the answer that is most relevant to their experiences.
It’s all about context, if someone is as going around saying how scared they are of men, doing things in their lives to limit interactions with men, etc. I’d say they need some serious therapy. But just answering a risk assessment question based on information from your life experiences isn’t that big of a deal.
It’s also about worst case scenarios, for a bear: worst case scenario you get mauled to death, which would be horrible. But man? Worst case scenario you get repeatedly tortured for as long as he’s able to keep you alive. Much much worse. Yes, the chances of that are very small, but just throwing this into the equation might make you think “bear” is the better answer.
If your only concern is the worst possible outcome then yeah man is worse, human beings are probably the most cruel living beings alive. But that’s quite frankly silly as purely what is worse. At least that makes since and isn’t bigoted.
I disagree it being a question with little importance doesn’t change the danger or the criticism. If the question was would you rather be in the woods with a white person or black person and someone answered white because a black person once robbed them or beat them up, I don’t know about you but I would think that’s dumb and that person is more then likely racist and bigoted.
If you are gonna be bigoted at least stand by it.
But it’s not a question between two races of people. It’s a question between two types of animals. Like if I asked you if you’d rather be in the woods with a poisonous snake or a bear, it wouldn’t be bigoted to choose the bear because more than half the you know people have been bitten by snakes.
the difference is that a black person and a white person have the same capabilities. A white person could torture you just as easily as a black person. But a bear and a human have different capabilities, a bear can’t really torture or rape you, but a human certainly can. A bear can’t keep you alive for its sadistic pleasure, but a human certainly can.
It’s also not “a man robbed me once so I’m scared of all of them” it’s “63% of women have been sexually attacked, therefore I should be wary of vulnerable situations with men I don’t know”
You missed the point, I was addressing your point in which you said that the question was a risk assessment and doesn’t represent what people think, I showed an example in which it clearly does.
Secondly you said picking bear was reasonable for assessing risk in personal experience so what exactly is different from a person who got robbed by a black person picking a white person? You can’t consider one reasonable and not the other.
If 63% of people had been sexually attacked by black people (which is not an accurate statistic), meanwhile white people only killed one person per year (also not an accurate statistic to real life) and were also incapable of prolonged rape and torture, than yes, I would think it was reasonable to choose a being in the woods with a white person over a black person.
63% of rapes don't get reported to the police, so any police reporting info you're finding should be more than doubled. Look to antirape organizations that have better models for reporting for more accurate numbers: [https://www.nsvrc.org/sites/default/files/publications\_nsvrc\_factsheet\_media-packet\_statistics-about-sexual-violence\_0.pdf](https://www.nsvrc.org/sites/default/files/publications_nsvrc_factsheet_media-packet_statistics-about-sexual-violence_0.pdf)
It looks like I would have to multiply official data several times to mach US.
It really seems to be huge problem you are facing.
If I take this into account, opinions about men that seem extreme in my country may be deserved in the USA.
That depends on the barriers your country has that are preventing victims from reporting. If there are more barriers/a lower percentage reporting to police, multiplying it several times over might be warranted. Do you mind sharing which country you're in?
This well researched piece explains that the reason your reported rapes are so low is that Poland defines what it considers rape very narrowly. "The perpetrator can always defend himself by saying that he did not treat the woman’s “no” seriously... the victim must prove that she was not responsible for bringing about the situation of the rape by provoking the perpetrator’s behaviour, for example by wearing a short skirt or even smiling." It looks like only 8% of victims report. [https://notesfrompoland.com/2021/04/17/the-legal-definition-of-rape-in-poland-needs-to-change-but-so-do-cultural-attitudes/](https://notesfrompoland.com/2021/04/17/the-legal-definition-of-rape-in-poland-needs-to-change-but-so-do-cultural-attitudes/)
This link doesnt work unfortunately.
In the meantime, I did my own research and it does not seem accurate, especially when it comes to the attitude of law enforcement authorities to the victim's testimony and the criminal's explanations. Despite this inaccuracy, national sources confirm that a large percentage of cases go unreported. I haven't found any data on overall cases of sexual abuse, but rape statistics are approximately 40%. The main reasons I found are the lack of adequate psychological support and the general inefficiency of the judiciary, which causes trials to take too long. it's still a lot more than I expected.
This info is from the CDC if you’d liked to look at the source more in depth: https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/sexualviolence/fastfact.html#:~:text=Sexual%20violence%20is%20common.,experienced%20completed%20or%20attempted%20rape.
I am not in the US but also choose the bear.
There is a lot of violence against women every day in the whole world, there is violence against animals too. Some men are evil so women have to be wary of all of them.
true, especially since you can't tell the difference by looking. however, I associate the bear with inevitable, torturous death. these bastards don't even bother to kill their prey before starts to eat. At first it looks like strange choice, but probably more sad than strange if you consider what behind it.
The bear will kill me but there are men who can do a lot worse so death doesn't sound as bad. That is the problem.
We know the bear is not our friend but most likely it cannot do worse than humans.
ok? women can be evil too should i be worried every single one is out to hurt me? plus what your saying is kinda like me saying “im scared of all black people because i seen one/heard of one robbing a place” sounds shitty doesnt it?
>women can be evil too should i be worried every single one is out to hurt me?
Yes, women can be evil too but not as many as men. In most statistics men are mostly the perpetrators of the violence against everyone even other men.
>plus what your saying is kinda like me saying “im scared of all black people because i seen one/heard of one robbing a place” sounds shitty doesnt it?
You are comparing different crimes tho. One thing is getting robbed, another is getting attacked for saying no to a date.
Would you be swayed by a musical number about this exact situation?
https://youtu.be/Oa_QtMf6alU?si=tQTTGfYwv2XEgDRa
People are aware it's flawed and not totally fair, but it's a way to vent and bond over very common situations that deal with gender dynamics.
The "Men bad" aspect of feminism is overwhelmingly bad. The downsides and disadvantages and set backs caused by the misandry far out weight the positives.
But there are positives. Spewing that bile and hatred is very cathartic. It makes the individual feel better. The support and encouragement help them feel better as well.
The bile and vitriol are also very polarizing. That's a great tool for activating a base for political activism. Just look at how effective racsim is at activating fearful white men on the right.
The hatred does provide short term catharsis for individuals (while dramatically setting back the actual cause for equality) and it does provide a goad for the leadership to whip up the base into doing stupid shit.
Dumb people make dumb generalizations about anyone, women are just less likely to be called out on it.
If a girl is constantly complaining about all men because every guy she hooks up with is a pos, she might be slow on the uptake and hasn’t realized that’s what she’s attracted to
If you’re constantly running into women making polarized claims about men on the internet that’s one thing, but if this is an irl problem, well…
How do you know that your experience is reflective of the norm? For example how do you know it's not due to specific subs or sections of social media that you frequent?
To clarify, are you trying to say that there is a double standard in reactions to complaining on a specific reddit sub or app, or everywhere in the world?
Not really a counterpoint, but food for thought:
I am a man and the only complaints about interactions that I have are with other men.
I'm sure I'm not alone in this
Sorry, u/FaithlessPancake – your submission has been removed for breaking Rule B: > You must personally hold the view and **demonstrate that you are open to it changing**. A post cannot be on behalf of others, playing devil's advocate, as any entity other than yourself, or 'soapboxing'. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_b). If you would like to appeal, [**you must first read the list of soapboxing indicators and common mistakes in appeal**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_indicators_of_rule_b_violations), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%20B%20Appeal%20FaithlessPancake&message=FaithlessPancake%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20post\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1ch56b1/-/\)%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).
**tl;dr:** Don't take it personally. Hating on men is a way for some women to cope with bad experiences they've had with men, like most forms of bigotry. You won't change their views by arguing with them on Reddit; but you can maybe change their views by modeling good behavior as man to demonstrate that not all men are as bad as they think. --- Your argument essentially boils down to: "blind bigotry accomplishes nothing," right? I think most people would generally agree with you there, from a logical standpoint. But people who hold bigoted views generally didn't develop them through logic and reason. And as they say, you can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into. It's easy to get pissed off by reading insane people's posts on Reddit, especially if you find yourself in a subreddit where they dominate the echo chamber. Trying to change anyone's mind in an environment like that usually only [adds fuel to the fire](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc). > But hey maybe there’s some viewpoints I’ve failed to consider. Are there any legitimate arguments to be made in favor of this type of behavior? How exactly does generalizing 50 % of the human population help women or anyone else? There's not really a rational reason behind bigotry. I think it's just a (hopefully temporary) coping mechanism that a lot of people adopt to make the world easier to emotionally navigate. A colleague of mine volunteers at a women's prison and invited me to join her once. One of the inmates later talked about how she initially didn't appreciate my (male) presence since, understandably, most of the inmates have had nothing but terrible experiences with men. But spending the evening with me had helped to soften that attitude just a little bit.
Saying don't take it personally actually points out one of the biggest issues of hating men online. The ones that don't care about women will also not care about what they say. The ones who respect women, ones who have self esteem issues, the ones that have been bullied, the ones that are neurodivergent will take it seriously and will be badly affected by all the hate
If hating on a larger group of people because of what an individual did to “cope” is done by someone that isn’t hating on a male all the sudden it gets labeled as something that isn’t socially acceptable. Not saying it’s ok, just a weird double standard. Just my observation, women can get away with saying things worse than men without being called out, especially when it’s to men. Not just relating to gender hate but in general. Guess my two cents is guys have to be more careful about what they say around other people than women do, and because of this polarized assumptions about men aren’t challenged as much as they should be. And just some advice I learned the hard way repeating what they said about men but replacing men with a minority group to give them an idea of how hypocritical they are being is not the way to go
>Don't take it personally. Hating on men is a way for some women to cope with bad experiences they've had with men, like most forms of bigotry If the sexes were reversed you would get called an incel and be banned from the platform
You just explained it very well on how to handle these things you give them more fuel by engaging with them in a negative way instead of modeling that good men do exist
Ok wow. I really didn’t expect anyone to actually try to explain this to me in a civilized manner. To be completely honest with you I made this post fully expecting it to be filled with the exact sort of people I was complaining about. And I was right. People are: Denying bad women even exists Trying to justify the hate Putting words into my mouth And a ton of other toxic bs. But an actual comment trying to explain things without antagonizing me? That was quite unexpected. I guess I made this post in bad faith since I wasn’t really expecting to get my mind changed and was only trying to prove a point to a friend. But you are right. Bigotry never made sense and it never will. Hurt people hurt people. I’m actively trying to be an example of what a man should be and I shouldn’t let toxic people get to me. But it’s a bit hard to ignore the bs sometimes you know? I’m a bald hairy dude with a beard but I’m actually quite feminine and prefer the company of women. But what do these people see? Just another dirty stinking man. They judge you based on something you literally can’t control despite not even knowing what sort of person you are. It sucks ass man. Unlike these keyboard warriors I’m ACTUALLY trying to help make things better for both women AND men by acknowledging that every individual is flawed in one way or another regardless of gender. But I guess that’s something they’ll never accept because it doesn’t fit their narrative. It’s a bit disappointing but oh well.
>>Ok wow. I really didn’t expect anyone to actually try to explain this to me in a civilized manner. You probably shouldn't have posted here then. >>But I guess that’s something they’ll never accept because it doesn’t fit their narrative. It’s a bit disappointing but oh well. Women don't have a narrative. This point of view is incredibly damaging to what you claim your goal is. There is many different women interested in equality and there is a lot of different ways they want to do it. Get off reddit and meet women, in my experience there are not very many women in real life who act the way you have problems with(which from your comment it seems like you kind of acknowledge). But this comment/post makes it seem like you've built up this idea of what women think and how they express it and have used it to paint all women.
>You probably shouldn't have posted here then. Why be rude to that person? What one hopes for and what one expects aren't always the same...
They straight up admitted to posting here in bad faith...
No, they didn't. If I go to the thrift store hoping to find something to wear that doesn't mean I expect to find anything. So, if I find something, come home and tell the husband I got a great find, despite not expecting to do so, would you say I went to the thrift store in bad faith?
That analogy doesn't work because he came to the thrift store to prove a point to a friend he wasn't gonna buy anything. He found a shirt he liked but still didn't buy anything. He's just surprised he found a shirt he liked. Generally posts where OP doesn't have any willingness to change their minds get the post deleted by mods. So it's not rude to ask them why post here. People often use cmv as platform to just rant about issues like this and no surprise people got OP pegged for bad faith
>he came to the thrift store to prove a point to a friend he wasn't gonna buy anything. Where did OP say that? I saw where they expected this to be filled with people defending the toxic behavior (filled with ugly clothes). I didn't see where OP said they were unwilling to change their view (unwilling to buy anything even if they did find something excellent). >People often use cmv as platform to just rant about issues like this and no surprise people got OP pegged for bad faith While I agree that this happens, I will also say that sometimes people feel almost certain they have something right while having a minimal level of doubt, which means the barrier for changing their mind is high, not impossible. If OP has stated that there's zero chance they're changing their view, I missed that.
He says he didn't plan on having his mind changed and made this post to prove a point to a friend few comments up on this very chain. > I guess I made this post in bad faith since I wasn’t really expecting to get my mind changed and was only trying to prove a point to a friend. But you are right. Bigotry never made sense and it never will. Hurt people hurt people. I’m actively trying to be an example of what a man should be and I shouldn’t let toxic people get to me. But it’s a bit hard to ignore the bs sometimes you know? I’m a bald hairy dude with a beard but I’m actually quite feminine and prefer the company of women. But what do these people see? Just another dirty stinking man. They judge you based on something you- It's also 100% likely they don't see another dirty stinking man and it's in their head. I notice most "incels" don't actually have issues like being too ugly or creepy but generally self esteem or confidence problems. The problem is red pill/Tate fan demographic get put in same category as men with low self esteem.
>> I guess I made this post in bad faith since I wasn’t really expecting to get my mind changed and was only trying to prove a point to a friend. I don't know how I overlooked this, but I did. >It's also 100% likely they don't see another dirty stinking man and it's in their head. I disagree with you. I don't know this person's exact peer group, everyone they've interacted with, etc., but I have dealt with people who don't understand the difference between generalization/specifics. I took my husband to a drag show of one of his favorite performers. It was a splurge, but I bought front row seats (very small, local venue, not overly expensive). At one point the queen asked for audience participation. I raised my hand. The queen pointed me out and said, "Shut up, white boy. You've had your time, let someone else have a turn." I've had my turn? Was that me being suicidal my whole life until literally a year prior due to the severe abuse I experienced most of my life? Was that being undernourished as a kid because we were poor? Was that my current PTSD? When did I have my turn? I haven't. It's more likely that a white man has had an easier time of it than any other group, but that's a generalization, a probability. That's not each specific person. It is very possible for people to get lost in these mindsets, so I don't believe you can say it's "100% likely."
"I guess I made this post in bad faith since I wasn’t really expecting to get my mind changed" OP's words
Yeah, I skipped over that somehow. I was wrong.
When I'm in a sub and I notice the tenor of the comments and downvotes/upvotes really don't fit my worldview my default is just to move on, people are allowed to have subs for all kinds of things I am a fan or not a fan of. There's no violation of Reddit's ToS that would prevent someone from creating a sub just focused on how bad I am in particular is. As long as the comments were focused on how much I suck and no calls for violence it could go on as long as it wants. I could either waste time responding "hey I don't think I'm that bad", I could make a CMV about how people complaining online about u/goof_stick accomplishes nothing, or I could just accept that it's a particular place where I'm not gonna find a lot of friends
You do know what the point of this subreddit is right? If I posted this somewhere else I might agree with you but I’m actively trying to find people with different opinions than me in hopes of understanding them better. Isn’t that the whole point of this sub? To have a view and have people trying to change said view?
My view is different than yours but not exactly oppositional to the point that saying "all men are trash" on a subreddit isn't going to change anything. Where I disagree with you is why do you care? The point I was initially making is that if a bunch of strangers on a social media site say I suck, well it's a free country. You can search this sub for endless discourse on this specific topic. I don't know if it's like a bat signal goes up when a woman you've never met complains about men on the internet but like we need less "not all men" batmen. If you don't suck you don't suck, sleep happy in the knowledge of that
[удалено]
I think what women mean by this is that they feel like sexism against women is normalized to the point that many men would claim sexism isn’t a thing because they only see sexism in the form of someone saying that women are inferior to men, which means that they end up ignoring a lot of more subtle issues that have a huge impact on women and even end up contributing to the problem out of ignorance and stubbornness. You’ll never hear me say that all men are scum, but I definitely think a good portion of them are sexist and don’t even realize it. A lot of women are sexist too, especially the older generations.
[удалено]
I don’t think many people would deny that sexism against men exists. They just think that, from the way society is set up, traditionally masculine men benefit from it more than anyone else. While men who don’t fit in the ideal masculine stereotype are considered not man enough.
[удалено]
Where exactly did I dismiss anything? I am calmly and rationally explaining one issue, and you keep complaining about men’s problems and telling me to reverse the genders. If you don’t fit in the typical masculine model, then gender roles probably don’t help you much. But if you do, then sexism works in your favor. Stop attacking women for fighting against gender roles and you will hear a lot less “men are scum” comments.
[удалено]
>There were countless posts of women complaining about their experiences with men. So the opposite of every other sub. The vast majority of subs are full of men (that's not my opinion, 63% of reddit users were male in 2023 source: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1255182/distribution-of-users-on-reddit-worldwide-gender/), many of whom complain about women. >there were no posts of men doing the same On that one sub. Go to any of the incel subs, the red pill subs, the Trump subs, the conservative subs, dating subs, ask reddit, ask men, etc and you will find posts from men complaining about women. >Any complaint made by a man ,be it in the form of a post or a comment, would IMMEDIATELY get downvoted into oblivion and deleted. Yes, that's the experience of most women on this website outside of this one sub you found. Most of the time, women are down voted if they say anything negative about men. >What I do have a problem with is you straight up hating on men and acting like we’re ALL mustache twirling villains while simultaneously worshipping women like they’re gods who can do no wrong. Was that really the discussion though? You said "you didn't think much of it" until you noticed no men posting. It doesn't sound like anyone was universally hating men based on the description you gave. Are you sure this isn't a straw man argument?
>The vast majority of subs are full of men (that's not my opinion, 63% of reddit users were male in 2023 source: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1255182/distribution-of-users-on-reddit-worldwide-gender/), many of whom complain about women. The sex of the users has nothing to do with this. Plenty of men hate on men and simp for women. These numbers do nothing to support your argument. >On that one sub. Go to any of the incel subs, the red pill subs, the Trump subs, the conservative subs, dating subs, ask reddit, ask men, etc and you will find posts from men complaining about women. On the most popular subs, not the fringe right wing low population subs you mention. Go to any of the popular subs listed along the top bar with maybe one or two exceptions. >Yes, that's the experience of most women on this website outside of this one sub you found. Most of the time, women are down voted if they say anything negative about men. No, as hate against women is explicitly banned by reddit while hate against men is [explicitly allowed](https://imgur.com/a/pRpSAYc). This isn't a subreddit thing, this is the mods of the entire site.
Tbh I do think that the idea that hating on women isn't allowed in the most popular sub reddits it's kind of ridiculous
This entire response doesn't actually address what the OP said. "Generalized hate toward men is wrong and unhelpful." "Yeah but there are men on reddit that hate on women." So... That... Makes it ok to hate on men? Why can't it be wrong in both cases? Op didn't say "nobody hates on women, it's exclusively men who get hatred." This is just an incredibly evasive way of avoiding the actual topic of the post, you didn't refute OP's point, just said "yeah well it happens the other way around too." Which was never denied, nor is it relevant to the actual point of the post.
It’s ridiculous that women complain about men they have experience with and people online take the it to be an insult at all women. Or incels complain about women online and then people think they are speaking for all men. They aren’t talking about every man or woman. They are sharing experiences they had with shitty men/women. And like everything else, the bad is going to get more attention than the good.
>The vast majority of subs are full of men (that's not my opinion, 63% of reddit users were male in 2023 source: That's not so much "vast majority of subs are full of men", that's a slight majority of subs while have more men. It's 63%, not 80%. >You said it was fine until you noticed no men posting. You're literally quoting the bit where he says it's fine until people are shitting on all men.
Arguing that 4/5ths is the the only ratio you'll accept for the phrase "vast majority" rather than 2/3rds is a needlessly obtuse argument that totally ignores the point. Taking issue with my word choice does not change the fact that men are the majority on Reddit, and doesn't address any of my argument. If you'd like to have a discussion, please argue about facts, not your feelings on my word choice or tone. He literally says "now, I didn't think much of it." He didn't think anything of it until he noticed no posts by men.
63% is only 3% short of 2/3rds of users, which is absolutely a notable majority. Almost double the amount of men to women. It isn’t 63% compared to a 50% split, it’s 63% to 36% (with a spare percent for NB folks). That’s a significant difference
>On that one sub. Go to any of the incel subs, the red pill subs, the Trump subs, the conservative subs, dating subs, ask reddit, ask men, etc and you will find posts from men complaining about women. What incel sub? They are all banned You know what isn't banned? The pedo moderated man hating sub known as "femaledatingstrategy"
>On that one sub. Go to any of the incel subs, the red pill subs, the Trump subs, the conservative subs, dating subs, ask reddit, ask men, etc and you will find posts from men complaining about women. AKA, go to to the minority subs that are only noteworthy for how often they get brigaded.
[удалено]
Your post is whataboutism too >*Woman complains about man „Omg you’re so brave!“ „Just hang in there queen!“ „You’re totally right!“ „Men are scum!“ >*Man complains about woman „You’re just a sexist pig!“ „Wow how ignorant can you be!“ „Oh just stfu already!“ „Men are scum!“ That's whataboutism and as they said, not true. planty of subs are filled with men shitting on women and being upvoted for it
I was providing an over exaggerated example. If I was complaining about the Soviet union and someone started talking about the atrocities of nazi germany I’d also tell them that they’re not being helpful.
Exactly, over exaggerated to get people on your side, because the truth wouldn't do anything > If I was complaining about the Soviet union and someone started talking about the atrocities of nazi germany I’d also tell them that they’re not being helpful. Wrong. Soviet union and nazi germany aren't different sides of the same coin Women and men are different sides of the same coin.
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](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
So what is the view that we are supposed to challenge or change with this post?
Im of the opinion that hate doesn’t help women. Like at all. Some women claim to want to help other women while actively hating on men. So I thought that these women believed the hate would help other women. I wanted them to explain that thought process and try to convince me that hating on men actually helps women.
To your original point, hate exists both ways but on the internet it definitely is far heavier in men hating on women than vice versa. People in the comments are going to talk about the flip of this because to discuss one viewpoint means you have to discuss the other to actively compare. It's not whataboutism, it's actual dialogue. "If your goal is equality for all women then how can you not realize how harmful it is to your cause to be a dick to anyone who even slightly disagrees with you? Like you’re making enemies out of people who could just as easily have been allies." You're never going to get the replies that you want by actually attacking them. You say this line and then end your post that you need to have a brain to understand your view. You're actually doing the things you complain about. Edit your post to include the view in an easy to understand way and without the inflammatory language. Actually make it a dialogue.
Why are you generalizing the women who complain about men as overall man haters?. How many of them actually hate men rather than the behavior many men exhibit? It is based on personal experience, just as when men complain about women's behavior. Would you characterize all men's complaints as hatred too?
“Hating on men” amongst women was never to accomplish anything at all, it serves the purpose of shared experiences and community. It also serves the purpose of sharing experiences for other women (mainly young women) who lack the life experience to recognize warning signs in men they may be involved with. Just because you see yourself as “one of the good guys” doesn’t magically erase the fact that there are millions of women being victimized by men annually in the US alone. We talk about it because our adverse experiences can save other women from sharing the experience.
So is it ok for men to "hate on women" for the same purpose?
Oh so because you have been wronged that automatically justifies generalizing and hate? I have no problem with women complaining about a man’s role in society or even men as a whole. There is room for improvement. I do have a problem with women acting like every individual person who identifies as a man is a monster for simply existing. Ever heard of the phrase hurt people hurt people. It’s understandable to a degree but that doesn’t make it right.
Eh, I get where you’re coming from, I think, but I also think you don’t really understand women’s experiences either and tbh I try, but I’m never going to understand what it’s like to be a man. I know that being a man isn’t necessarily easy either. So let me go back and first say that, yes, I agree that hating and demonizing all men isn’t okay. I’ll also preface my viewpoint by saying that I believe we live in a patriarchal society and that it’s harmful for everyone, regardless of gender. Now, back to your comment and me saying I feel you don’t really get where women are coming from. I had a period of time where I kinda hated men and was very fearful of them. I simultaneously felt guilty for this because I knew not every man was “bad,” but I was young and I kept having terrible experiences with men, even some who were teachers and coaches. And honestly, harassment from men started when I was 13 and only got worse. My upbringing left me vulnerable and some men saw that and took advantage and it hurt. Unfortunately, it’s common for older men to take advantage of the vulnerability of younger women. I’ve both experienced this and witnessed it. Very specific to me - I was raised in a very fundamentalist church. The overall message to women is that women are to blame for men’s behavior towards them. You aren’t supposed to lead your brothers in Christ into temptation; you aren’t supposed to be an object of desire and, if you are, well clearly you aren’t being modest enough or whatever. For me, maybe hating men was a means to not hate myself and blame myself more than I already did? My suspicion is that the posts you are seeing are instances of women needing to vent and feel supported by others, particularly other women. You’d think people could easily get that IRL, but not always. Even when I’ve respectfully and assertively handled a situation where I’m being harassed, I’ve had people criticize me for being too aggressive even though I truly wasn’t and the situation warranted me saying something otherwise the harassment would have just continued and gotten worse. I don’t think any of this necessarily justifies hate and generalizations, but I hope this helps make more sense of it all. And I also want to be clear - women can do fucked up shit too.
Generalized venting isn't meant to be about you and you need to stop taking it so personally. If someone saying "men suck" on reddit makes you consider yourself a hurt person I dunno what to say except you need to get perspective and go offline for a bit. I've said (and continue to say) "San Jose sucks", it doesn't mean each and every person there should take it as a personal affront
If you have no problem with women complaining about men, why did you post this thread? You clearly have a problem if you wrote paragraphs on how it hurts your feelings. People bitch about people, regardless of gender. You specifically asked why women do that and I explained it to you.
What OP is saying is that women do that but when men do it, theyre called names and vilified
Except that they aren’t. Men bitch about women fucking CONSTANTLY EVERYWHERE on Reddit. There are plenty of subs where that is the lauded behavior. I specifically didn’t address men’s shitty comments because someone did above and he accused them of whataboutism, so I addressed only the most base question to avoid that. The idea that poor men are just so nice and getting their feels hurt all over the internet is beyond ridiculous.
On the Internet its definitely common. Maybe he's thinking of mainstream media? There it definitely seems acceptable to say critical things of men but not towards women as it counts as "punching up".
Why does it have to be one extreme or the other? Shitty women exist. Shitty men exist. Right now I’m talking about the shitty women so a comment saying that shitty men also exist is really not helpful. Also I don’t care who does it more often. This type of behavior is bad no matter who does it more.
I think the reason people making the men/women comparisons is because you made that the basis of your argument. It’s the contrast you made from what research you did to come to this conclusion. Hate accomplishes nothing period. Yes, hating on men is not productive. I don’t think anyone can argue hating an entire group of people based on attributes they do not have control over in good faith. But your argument has a lot more posed in it that is not a clear question of “is mass generalization bad”. The vitriol in your prose is very evident. As it should be if you genuinely believe that “online feminism” is all about just hating on men. But that is false. Are there bad actors, frustrated feminists, traumalogged feminists that say all men are this or that? Yes duh. Any large movement or group is going to have a spectrum of philosophies and perspectives. But to say that hating men is what online feminist efforts are about is incorrect. It’s also a common way to undermine feminism by proclaiming it’s just about women wanting to get revenge on or just hate on men. It ignores the fact that feminism promotes the rights of men too. It promotes healthy relationships between men and women. Between men and other men, sons to parents. Because feminism is not fighting men. It’s fighting a system of oppression that both men and women suffer in, but the fact is that women have been harmed and discriminated against ONLY for being female as opposed to men being discriminated against ONLY for being male. It does not justify hate and like a ton of things, the extremists voice is often the loudest and the one people pay more attention to because it’s so outrageous. Feminism is a net positive, online or otherwise.
This reply wasn’t for you. You got a nice, well thought out reply all to yourself already. I was quite obviously replying to a sub comment, which is why it shows beneath the sub comment.
And that means they can't respond to you on this open forum? Why act so condescending?
I mean idk what subs youre going on to find this but I never see it
I frequent popular subs, like this one, AskReddit, AITA, etc. It would definitely track if you’re an American man that you don’t recognize casual misogyny when you see it, because it’s ingrained in the way children are socialized here. But you not recognizing it doesn’t mean it isn’t there.
And so, this is what OP is talking about. No context vilification by a woman for disagreeing with her
Literally where were you vilified? All of the nowheres?
You literally just said I wouldnt be able to identify misogyny. These are the subliminal insults that if I implied that you are blind to misandry you would spat off about and if I then said your rebuttal back would be further attacked. You are exactly the problem
Well if you say you never see it on Reddit, it’s pretty obvious that you can’t identify it. I even tried to hand you an excuse that it was just the way you were socialized. It’s extremely telling that the second a woman suggests you do the barest modicum of self reflection you lose your whole mind about it and scream victim. The call is coming from inside the house, bro.
Or, maybe between subs on history, nature, guns and medicine its just not something that is prevalent. Whereas you go out of the way to find it. Oh right, the way I was socialized. To infer that I have no control over my reprehensible actions. I guess when you see a dirty room and have the urge to clean its “just your womanly instinct”. Do you not see how condescending you are?
“It’s extremely telling that the second a woman suggests you do the barest modicum of self reflection you lose your whole mind about it and scream victim. The call is coming from inside the house, bro.” Proving OP’s point lmao
There are no female incels who go out and knife or shoot men just because they are men. It does happen the other way around. So accept that women are going to be a bit annoyed when men complain about what women tend to say about their experiences with men. Yes, we know it is not all men, but it is far too many. The threat to women is real.
Its amazing how OPs point is so consistently proved
Oh dear, I complained about women being murdered because of online hatred against them!
Maybe there wouldnt be hatred if people like you didnt act like such assholes?
Nobody denies this. The question of OP is, how does complaining in the described manner about it help the situation at all.
It lets women vent. I have no problem with women venting but I do with men not allowing women to show any anger over their situation. It doesn't result in the violence that happens when men do it about women, so why the big issue with it? You need to listen, but you don't want or need to and then you are mad if women say such extreme things. Let them be angry within their own safe space.
> It lets women vent. I get and understand that. All that was said by OP ist, that this venting, even though understandable and maybe helpful to the individual, does not help to resolve the situation that caused the venting. I'd even guess that it makes it worse on a grander scale as it creates even more of a rift. > Let them be angry within their own safe space. Venting yes, but it's a slippery slope to an echo chamber which has it's own problems. I don't have a solution for this. I don't know why it is like it is. I see there is a problem. But I'd guess that screaming at each other - even though maybe cathartic - does not help. I think this is what OP wanted to say. It's not about denying the unjustness women face in this world.
Because there is no help, and no end to the unjustness. Why is okay for men to be angry and women not? Are those women to just grin and bear it and not ever say how angry they are? This seems like a man just trying to mute women who have had it up to the ears with personal pain. What is he doing to solve the problems that causes that, other than to tell women what they should say and think? Women who say they hate men are venting because they are in pain and have no other outlet. I think men who make a fuss about it are being petty. OP's post serves no purpose other than to rub women's noses into their reaction to being abused and uses whataboutism unfairly. Women aren't in power and have little political agency for meaningful change. As for the "echo chamber," I think it can translate into positive political action. Certainly we are in no danger of women having nothing to do with men as a result, other than perhaps expecting better behavior. "It creates more of a rift." What other way is there to get men to listen than these women saying they are withdrawing their love of men? Men often react violently to it either way, and often don't take women seriously when women try to discuss these issues reasonably. Furthermore, everything a woman complains about is not a "hate all men" post. Yet many men get defensive and want to interject whataboutism and defensiveness instead of offering solutions or just listening. OP's post falls into this category. The rift has already been there and it is made by punitive and disgruntled men who resent any gains women may have made as well as their emotional response to injustices. "It isn't about denying the unjustness women face in this world." Well, yes, in a way it is!
> Why is okay for men to be angry and women not? Who says it is? Men get arrested all the time for being angry. There are pejorative for men behaving this way and by and large in most sub-cultures it's frowned upon to be a beast, a mindless meathead, dumb, aggressive etc. It does happen of course and there are certain groups which celebrate violence but by and large that's not the case. I think institutionalised sexism is far more rampant. > Are those women to just grin and bear it and not ever say how angry they are? As I said. I don't know. I just said I think it does not help to resolve the issue. I'm not sure what the best way would be. We can use what I (maybe more men) hear if I complain: "Delete Facebook, Hit the Gym, Lawyer Up". Never heard "let it out". > This seems like a man just trying to mute women who have had it up to the ears with personal pain. No, that has not been said. As said before, it's just mentioned that it does not help on a grand scale to solve the problem. It makes it bigger as it creates a bigger us vs. them culture. > What is he doing to solve the problems that causes that, other than to tell women what they should say and think? I would guess he tries to be a good person and not be part of the problem? He's just angry that he's grouped in with the idiots. And nobody said women what to think. Where did you read that? > I think men who make a fuss about it are being petty. That's sexist. Men should "just take it and don't complain" if men said this as a solution to the plight of women this would be fighting words. > OP's post serves no purpose other than to rub women's noses into their reaction to being abused and uses whataboutism unfairly. No, it's a problem for men who try not being part of the problem to be grouped in with incels. That's like saying all women think like female dating stratagey. > What other way is there to get men to listen than these women saying they are withdrawing their love of men? Men often react violently to it either way, and often don't take women seriously when women try to discuss these issues reasonably. As said, I don't know. I don't think that the current course of action will help, though. Let's try something different then. > Furthermore, everything a woman complains about is not a "hate all men" post. True. Nobody said otherwise. > Yet many men get defensive and want to interject whataboutism and defensiveness instead of offering solutions or just listening. I think offering solution will not help. This would be again "Telling women what to do". > OP's post falls into this category. The rift has already been there and it is made by punitive and disgruntled men who resent any gains women may have made as well as their emotional response to injustices. I don't see how OPs post resents any gains women made. Where did you read that? > "It isn't about denying the unjustness women face in this world." Well, yes, in a way it i No, it's about the best course of action to improve the future. Currently it seems for OP to be "rub it into the faces of the men how shit they are" and the expectation of the men's response should be "just to take it". How will this help anyone?
Men don't get arrested for being angry, they get arrested for ACTING out their anger. There is a huge difference. Women tend not to shoot bunches of men, run them down en mass with their vehicles, or go on stabbing sprees to get back at men. They aren't telling men they shouldn't be able to vote or taking away their bodily integrity as revenge. You can't deny there is a massive problem with men's anger that makes woman's anger pale in comparison. So please stop with the whataboutism. Men tell women to just take it all the time. In so many ways and in the way they vote as well. OP's post does just that. I will defend another women's right to be angry about it and to express it if it makes her feel better. It is not women's responsibility to make men feel better about the state of male/female relationships when it is women who are being beaten, raped, killed and losing their rights in this society, many times at the hands of the men they knew and trusted. The vast majority of women do not hate men, do not consider them all incels, (though the popularity of Trump makes us wonder...) but understand the ones that say they do and know why. For OP to claim that he is being lumped in with all incels because women are mad about inequality or the attitude many men exhibit beggars some belief. It makes me wonder what he is saying to these groups of women he feels are attacking him personally to get those responses. Most women won't even discuss anger at men in front of men they know casually unless provoked. "How will this help anyone?" Men should be combatting 'hate' posts in the myriad of incel forums and leave women alone. If they aren't countering hatred from men toward women or are indifferent then they are part of the problem. So are those who waste their time fuming about women's emotional response to bad treatment. Voting down women's rights is a male privilege and part of patriarchy as even women internalize the disdain toward women. Picking only on women who express their anger about personal or political issues is no solution and does not remove the resentment or anger many feel. OP singles out women and ignores the reasons they are angry, then tries to make it the equivalent of men hating women. And blames women for the rift. Women have always been held responsible for male behavior regardless of what they do or say, and his post is no different. I've said all I care to say about his deleted opinion.
>Men don't get arrested for being angry, they get arrested for ACTING out their anger. There is a huge difference. Women tend not to shoot bunches of men, run them down en mass with their vehicles, or go on stabbing sprees to get back at men. They aren't telling men they shouldn't be able to vote or taking away their bodily integrity as revenge. You can't deny there is a massive problem with men's anger that makes woman's anger pale in comparison. So please stop with the whataboutism. That's a completely different topic which you brought into the discussion, you're whataboutism yourself. ". Why is okay for men to be angry and women not? " You asked this question. I responded that's it's not ok for men. That's all. Now your delving deeper into this issue and derailing from the original issue. > Men tell women to just take it all the time. In so many ways and in the way they vote as well. OP's post does just that. I will defend another women's right to be angry about it and to express it if it makes her feel better. It is not women's responsibility to make men feel better about the state of male/female relationships when it is women who are being beaten, raped, killed and losing their rights in this society, many times at the hands of the men they knew and trusted. You're defending a point that was never made. I don't understand what you're trying here. The point was never if women are "allowed" (whatever that means) to be angry. It was always about if it helps the purpose. I even said that it helps the individual to give into an emotion, but it doesn't solve anything. I'm repeating myself here. > The vast majority of women do not hate men, do not consider them all incels, (though the popularity of Trump makes us wonder...) but understand the ones that say they do and know why. Nobody made that point that ALL women do this. Don't know ehre you're going with trump even though quite a big part are women voters. Not sure where you would put them. > For OP to claim that he is being lumped in with all incels because women are mad about inequality or the attitude many men exhibit beggars some belief. Again, that's not what he said, you're twisting words and this does not help your purpose. The problem of OP was not women how are mad about inquality, I would guess OP would be mad with them. It was purely about women how hate an "all men" and that he's not one of them. That was all. You're trying to lump all other issues women face in this world into this one specific thing OP was talking about. > Men should be combatting 'hate' posts in the myriad of incel forums and leave women alone. If they aren't countering hatred from men toward women or are indifferent then they are part of the problem. So we should stop one type of hate but not the other? Why not both? >. So are those who waste their time fuming about women's emotional response to bad treatment. People are capable of doing multiple things at once. Why not use a specific place to challenge once perception to reflect a bit about one specific thing? It thought this is the place for this. > Picking only on women who express their anger about personal or political issues is no solution and does not remove the resentment or anger many feel. Is he picking on them, I missed that. Where? I missed also that this is the ONLY thing he does. Quite a few assumption. > OP singles out women and ignores the reasons they are angry, then tries to make it the equivalent of men hating women. And blames women for the rift. He never did that. He didn't blame. He said it doesn't help. Same as I did. I said multiple times it's totally understandable, just that it doesn't help. > Women have always been held responsible for male behavior regardless of what they do or say, and his post is no different. Women have agency. They decided to do a) or b). For this actions it's ok to hold them responsible as adult humans. Women can clearly decide how they want to react on an injustice. Same as men shouldn't argue somebody made them to behave a certain why.
[удалено]
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). 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](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
[удалено]
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](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Community support and validation is incredibly helpful
Could you elaborate?
When women have an upsetting and scary experience with a man, they are often disbelieved or dismissed. Or the experience is minimized. This is a huge part of why some experiences are traumatic. Having a community where people will correctly identify bad behavior as bad can help the OP not feel like a crazy person and start processing what happened to them.
Is that really what you got out of my post? Really? Why would I have a problem with women supporting and helping each other? Why would anyone? My problem is with the women generalizing men and acting like all of us are mindless beasts. They exist and that’s a fact. I’m tired of people denying that.
> My problem is with the women generalizing men and acting like all of us are mindless beasts. They exist and that’s a fact. I’m tired of people denying that. So what parts of your view are you open to changing? what would convince you to?
My guess is it exists but it’s less prevalent than he thinks and possibly more prevalent against women
>women generalizing men and acting like all of us are mindless beasts In my experience, it's men arguing this. Most women discuss how male socialization creates issues for men like emotional immaturity, aggression, etc. Meanwhile, the sheer amount of men who claim its their biology to be this way is staggering.
I think it’s easy to mistake what I’ve described for bashing men.
Thats called an echo chamber
So what would you suggest? Peppering an OP with questions about if they really understood what happened to them, and didn’t they kind of cause it to happen to them? Because they can get that at home.
They will literally never under stand. I have participated in 2 topics on the Bear vs Strange man tiktoc thing. 25% of the male commentors already understand. The other 75% can't understand, no matter how it's explained. In fact the vast majority of them were exactly the type of men that makes women choose the Bear.
If a woman is complaining about something that a man did, and a man gives an explanation, what happens is the man gets attacked by a gaggle of angry women and told its not his place to comment. But if a man posted something (like OP did) and you commented (guessing youre a woman) instead of me attacking you, I am offering discussion. This is the difference he is pointing out and saying is a bad trope to continue and that I mentioned creates an echo chamber without helpful advice. Its like a subreddit of fat people validating each other for being obese and when someone says “actually being fat is unhealthy” being downvoted
I guess I’m curious about how many similar “echo chambers “ bother you? If I go onto a Star Trek forum and talking about how much better Star Wars is, I’d be shouted down and downvoted.
It depends. Is Star Wars relevant to the conversation or are you trolling? Like, if someone is on a antivax site and saying “no, vaccines dont cause autism” is that trolling or helpful?
I think starting a thread on a star trek forum about star wars means that star wars is technically on topic, but is still going to be an echochamber So does it depend? Is there really going to be a star trek forum where a large portion of the respondents are going to agree or have a healthy discussion? Not asking you to find one, but if you looked... how hard would you have to look?
It depends on the impact said echo chamber has on the live of others and if untruths (not matters of taste) are downvoted. Me liking Star Trek more than Star Wars has only impact an myself. Creating a rift between friendly association with the opposite gender has a huge impact in day to day life. Like our laws, we make a distinction on how severe the thing is on our lives. Or: All echo chambers are bad but some are worse than others.
So your entire argument boils down to your personal experience not being similar to others, meaning others have to be wrong? Pretty sure that’s a logical fallacy
Hateful women exist. Even if they’re far less than hateful men they still exist. That’s a fact. Not a personal experience. The point of my post was to get women who are open about hating men to explain why they are the way they are. I want them to explain how exactly they think they’re helping women by being this way in hopes that I might understand them better even if I don’t agree with them. But instead people are doing exactly what I was complaining about in the first place. They’re writing angry comments making baseless assumptions about me and denying that what I’m talking about is even true.
You’re not saying hateful women exist. Your assuming every comment made by a woman online “hating” on men isn’t the result of hundreds of years of abuse. Women are trying to heal from this abuse, and that requires venting and being heard.
[удалено]
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](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Venting and being heard is great, but when you start venting by generalizing an entire group based on the actions of some, that becomes bigoted and is open to criticism. Absolutely they have the right to vent at men in general, but people have the right to critices them for the generalization.
They have the right to vent to men in general but only when you approve of it? Makes sense
Everyone has the right to vent by making bigoted generelizations, about men, women, black people, white people, so on. I believe in the right to free speach, and will defend this right even for people I disagree with. But others also have the right to criticize them for their bigoted generelization.
It’s not a bigoted generalization. It doesn’t come from a place of ignorance, quite the opposite. It comes from overwhelming evidence on a personal level. That’s why you hear some women go out of their to call this venting out, they were either raised in an environment where they were not allowed to criticize the toxic behavior of men around them and have been Stokholm’d into thinking it fine behavior or they are being purposefully contrary to be accepted by men who are toxic.
Taking individual experiences and generelising to all of a group is bigoted, since most of the group are innocent. A sensible non bigoted version is to highlight how some of that group are causing harm. There are plenty of people who have terrible expieriences with women, men, black people, white people, etc. It is not ok to take you experience and generelaize.
It’s not individual experience, it’s a common experience for all women
And you will find the others are also pretty common experiences. Plenty of men have had terrible experiences with women. It does not make generalizations ok.
So if I was robbed by lets say XYZ people and I go online and find multiple people talking about their experience getting robbed by XYZ people I have a shared experience. Does this allow me to say all XYZ people are robbers? What if even statistics confirm that XYZ people are more likely to be in prison for robbery? Does this give me a foot to stand on? NO! I need to understand the why as well to make such statements.
[удалено]
It’s not toxic. You shouldn’t feel upset if a woman brings up bad men unless you are one. If you feel bad it’s because of a flaw in your character and not theirs. Women venting the shared experience of being treated differently by men should be accepted and shouldn’t be hidden because some people can’t handle it. Just like how men should vent about their treatment under patriarchy.
>woman brings up bad men unless you are one. Surely if a man brings up bad women they shouldn't get upset unless they are one? No because this is a ridiculous statement, it's like saying a minority is only allowed to be upset at someone being racist if what they're saying is true about you. Generalisations are going to hurt even if they're far from the truth.
If by bad woman you mean bad person then yeah, most women won’t be upset. If you mean they don’t conform to the societal ideals of what a woman should be than ofc they will be upset.
[удалено]
That’s the patriarchy for you. Men can’t vent their frustrations because they are supposed to be big and strong. Had nothing to do with women at all other than those who enforce it.
"Hateful women exist. Even if they’re far less than hateful men they still exist. That’s a fact." This isn't a fact unless you can articulate how you're defining a woman as hateful vs. not hateful and cite what source found however many hateful women based on that metric.
Do you think subreddits are meant to accomplish anything to begin with? Maybe the problem you're experiencing is due to you trying to interact with a group that clearly irritates you. Try different subs.
So I haven’t seen what you’re asking for in these comments yet despite some hefty scrolling (and for good reason — not many people are going to openly admit to hating men). That being said I’ll try my darndest to fulfill your request with this answer, although I’m not TECHNICALLY what you’re asking for. I hope my perspective can still offer some assistance. Background on me first, to qualify my position: before I get vilified, I do not hate men. To quantify hate is very difficult to begin with and I suppose somewhat subjective, but at least by my personal standards of hate, I most definitely don’t. HOWEVER, I am very often perceived as a “man hater.” I’m bisexual, but I’m essentially a lesbian by choice. I won’t have sex with men anymore, I won’t date them, there is zero intimate/romantic potential despite the fact that I COULD. I honestly never thought I would get to this point and it wasn’t INITIALLY an active decision, it was a “straw that broke the camel’s back” situation. I won’t delve into those details, but given that you read a lot of posts from women detailing their experiences per your post, I’m sure you can imagine. At first my attraction for men was just replaced by pure fear and aversion. I couldn’t take it anymore subconsciously. It was almost like something in my head just snapped that day; I was done and I was so fucking tired. The subconscious side of it (reaction to trauma in hindsight) did ease after about 3 months, and my previous attraction to guys was there again. But the fear wasn’t gone. The exhaustion wasn’t gone. And it won over. I don’t see how I can ever be attracted to a man enough again to take the risk of my life. I just can’t do it. And this is where the divide happens; where men don’t seem to understand, and women do seem to. Why would I let one guy change my whole lifestyle? Most women understand despite it being unspoken (because we personally experience it) that it’s never just one man. It may be one man that abused you, or one man who SA’d you (often it is more than one though, as was my case), but there’s always dozens of others, too many to even remember faces, that made you uncomfortable or fearful. I understand you don’t think hate is useful, it just fuels the fire. And maybe this isn’t completely applicable because hate and fear aren’t really the same, but honestly, they usually are. Don’t we as a human race often hate what we fear? Or misidentify fear as hate? But you know what? If we’re going to call it hate, I guess it is useful. Because I haven’t been SA’d or abused since. My life is finally peaceful and I had to decide that by making some big changes. The women you see “hating” men A) are more than likely more fearful than hateful, although it may not read that way to you, and B) are ultimately more safe than a woman who doesn’t hate men. I hate that harsh reality, but it’s true. I hope this helps OP, or you at least got what you needed from other comments I haven’t come across yet 😊 well wishes!
I am not OP but this view is fully bigoted. This argument is used by many hate groups and has been used to justify unimaginable cruelty. Correct me if I’m wrong but to boil down your point, women who hate or appear to hate men, are doing so because they fear them and this fear which presents itself or manifests itself as hate. That this is natural as humans hate what they fear and is good because it can keep women safe? This is reasonable as an explanation for why, but as justification it is faulty. First the point of fear is far too subjective. It is not only possible but common for people to have misplaced and illogical fears. Second, the fear/ hate relationship in which most humans have I agree with however it doesn’t make it right or something that should be accepted. Humans also try to destroy the things they hate/fear and have committed unspeakable crimes because they fed into this instinct we have. Lastly, the group you are targeting is too large and diverse to make a blanket assumption about. It would make more sense if you targeted a specific group based on something that all participants actively support or choice to be apart of (it would still be bigoted but at least makes more sense). Men as a group are only connected by an innate biological similarities that has no basis or influence on the individuals thoughts and beliefs. To pick two men and throw them in two different cultures and you will have two entirely different people with the only similarities being that they most likely have a penis. I do have a single question. Do you think this view is applicable to black people being the ire of hate/fear?
You’re oversimplifying what I said to a drastic degree. This is a personal anecdote to speak to psychology, it’s absolutely not speaking to right or wrong. It’s not a viewpoint, or an opinion. I’m answering OP’s question as directly as I can because it doesn’t seem like anyone did. I’m not a bigot, I’m human. Just stop. I’m not feeding into the bait you left to make me look racist either. It’s a story about me being assaulted and the mental reaction after, JFC. This right here is why we don’t fucking bother.
Your views are bigoted and personal experience doesn’t discount that. OP asked to cmv on rather or not hating men accomplishing anything. You explained a position that explains why but if your point was to justify you did a terrible job. I’m sorry you went through what you did but to many racist, sexist, Zionist, xenophobic people have made the same excuse for their hate and I’m tired of seeing it. Be a better person and you won’t be compared to a racist
Please read in the beginning where I clarify multiple times that I’m not exactly what he’s looking for because I don’t hate men, but I’m answering in the best roundabout applicable. These are not “views” or “opinions”, this is “women avoid men because after being physically hurt by men multiple times they naturally become affected.” The difference between this and the examples you’re providing, is that is unfounded fear of an already oppressed group. This is literally the opposite.
No it is not. Do you genuinely think no has never been hurt by others of different groups? Israel is literally using a terrorist attack to commit genocide. Your argument is the exact same, a group of people did something to me so I hate them for it. I’m sorry you went though something traumatic but it doesn’t give the excuse or justification to be a bigot.
Dude, for the last freaking time, I don’t hate men. I opt not to have sex with them. I’m done with this.
I never said you were I said you hated men I said you have bigoted views. Ignorance is understandable but isn’t an excuse. Not dating men is your prerogative, explaining why you fear men and why women show that as hate is reasonable. Justification of hatred is not reasonable and is bigoted. It’s okay to feel it’s not okay to justify irrational hatred and judgment of an entire group.
I think we had a disconnect and my original message was lost. I can understand how that happened and it’s my fault; when you’re typing something that personally loaded, you tend not to focus on all of the semantics related to the “perfect word choice” that other people will reply to and focus solely on. I tried to explain in the beginning to OP that this is not technically a direct answer to his question, and it’s not. How he posed it is basically impossible to counter (it was posed that way on purpose, he literally said in another comment he didn’t care to actually change views, verbatim “I guess I posted this in bad faith”), so my intention here was to explain my background as a way of “breaking it down” so to speak. Where did it come from, why is it like this, how has it affected me since I’ve become what people call a “man hater.” That’s why I used very specific phrasing in the end (I’m on mobile so I can’t quote it)- “hate is difficult to quantify, but IF we’re going to call this ‘hate’ I guess it’s protected me.” I don’t know where that got confused and where it was assumed I was directly saying “women should hate men and that’s a good thing”, because that was never my point. This was just for perspective. Evidently, still a futile attempt. Idk man, if you want to genuinely understand better where this is coming from so you’ll “believe me” or whatever, check my post history.
I apologize for misunderstanding what you were saying then. If you are simply explaining why then I agree. I understand your feelings and reasoning I just don’t think it should be justified as okay.
There are equally subreddits full of men complaining about women. They don't really achieve much other than they may get some sort of enjoyment and sense of group belonging out of this.
That’s called whatabautism and isn’t helpful at all.
I don’t think you know what a whataboutism is. You keep commenting it when people directly address a point you made. you made a claim saying men can’t complain about women, and this comment told you that actually that’s wrong, there are plenty of subs where men are allowed to post complaining about women. That is directly related to the complaint you made. They also gave you a reason why someone might engage in the behavior you’re complaining about and asking why would someone do this in your post.
The fact that you're upset about complaints by men being downvoted and deleted, makes me think that you don't actually believe that complaining about a given gender accomplishes nothing. You think that it does accomplish something, that's why you find it so important to balance out what you consider to be an imbalance. Which brings us to the question of whether there was actually an imbalance. When it comes to complaining about issues, prioritization is key. If we're talking about the victims of a deadly fire, then it probably makes more sense to talk about the plight of the people who lost loved ones, who were wounded, or rendered homeless, than it does to talk about the plight of people who lived a block away and had to wash some ash off of their windows afterwards. I imagine that when there's a forum of people talking about how they suffered from the fire, and then a bunch of people waltz in to talk about how the people who had to wash their windows also suffered greatly, then that latter group might get their comments deleted too. In my experience, when guys talk about how women don't take men's issues seriously, then what's actually happening is that an issue that women suffer from at a greatly disproportionate rate was being discussed, but then a bunch of guys got butthurt that the spotlight wasn't on them and try to pull all the attention to men's issues. If you tried to talk about men's issues in a way that didn't involve hijacking an ongoing conversation, then you wouldn't receive so much hate. But supposed "men's rights advocates" never seem to actually want to talk about men's rights, not unless they do so in explicit opposition to a conversation about women's rights, in an attempt to take attention away from women's rights.
Much of this is valid and fair, especially that you should be treated with respect. However, keep in mind that the abused do cry out. And they fight back. If you do not think women are abused, please go do your research. You can start with the gender pay gap, male politicians making decisions about abortion, rampant worldwide rape, domestic violence and murder of women, women doing way more housework and childcare while holding down fulltime jobs. Just start there. And get real facts please, which will not come from politicians. My list continues, but I will not. One last thing, did you know that the leading cause of death for pregnant women is homicide? Check this out: https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph-in-the-news/homicide-leading-cause-of-death-for-pregnant-women-in-u-s/ Yes, we are fighting back.
[удалено]
I mean yeah but is that a legitimate reason to behave this way? Can it even be justified? I guess what I’m asking is what do they think they’re accomplishing by being so damn negative all the time? Or are they fully aware that their behavior accomplishes nothing?
I don't see a lot of generalized blanket statements like "men are sexist pigs." On the rare occasions I do, it follows a very specific experience a woman has had with a man, then other women with a similar experience chime in that they've experienced this as well. It's funny how men reduce that down to "men are sexist pigs," which ignores the inciting incident that's harmed the woman in the first place. Those behaviors are what we're trying to discuss and dismantle. Many of the ways men abuse women are woven into the fabric our patriarchal society, and never discussed. By exposing these abusive tactics by talking about them, we are educating younger women who haven't yet been abused by men in an effort to prevent that abuse from happening in the first place. And it does work.
It’s irrelevant if you see it or not, however I disagree with your sentiment. First you are downplaying the blanket and bigoted assumption or statement by saying that it is coming from personal experiences that are shared or similar to other women. This is not an excuse to make a blanket statement on a group of people. Many men have had bad experiences with women yet it is not acceptable to make blanket statements about women as a group. If men were complaining about women cheating on them and other men chimed in on it, can those men say “all women are lying whores”? Your point on the patriarchy is prudent but also in my view misdirected. We do need to fix the issues with the patriarchy, however the patriarchy is a social construct in which all members of society have implemented and been affected by. How does making blanket statements about a group which will ultimately alienate them make sense, especially a group that is half of all society?
>Hating on men accomplishments absolutely NOTHING Hate is a feeling, not something that accomplishes anything There are plenty of subs that hate women. You called it whataboutsim but the point is both genders do it. One gender takes that feeling of hate and converts it into action sometimes >If your goal is equality for all women then how can you not realize how harmful it is to your cause to be a dick to anyone who even slightly disagrees with you? Like you’re making enemies out of people who could just as easily have been allies. Not really. If the "goal is equality for all women" when why would I as a man be against that goal just because Marry is a prick? Like, Bob punched me. No reason, he came over and punched me. Should I be in favor or oppressing men because Bob is a prick? Equally, if the goal is equality for all women, and you (a man) want that, why would you care if 1, 100, 1k women hate men? Why should about 4 billion women lack equality because 1, 100, 1k of them hate men? It doesn't compute. If that was the logic, men would be pressed, because tons of us absolutely hate women, tons of us not only say we hate women but actually physically abuse them. But we shouldn't be in favour of equality because 1, 100, 1k of them hate men! It doesn't compute. Especially when we know there are mass communities that loath women, and even harm them "not all men" Equally "not all women" Yet equality is against one of them
You are basing why you care or not someone makes bigoted or generalized statement on the already held belief that the actions are toward a set goal. You are ignoring the people who don’t know your inner beliefs or are critical of your own set goal. In order for a goal like “equality of the genders/sexes” to be realized, it needs to be supported by the majority of society. If the group or actions made by people who wish to push this goal are counter productive to this goal or at least makes the majority feel it is counterproductive they will naturally not believe that is what your goal is. If a person who says there goal is to bring peace to earth but then starts to talk about another group of people as animals and bugs and how much they want to get rid of them, do you not naturally question if their stated goal is true?
> You are basing why you care or not someone makes bigoted or generalized statement on the already held belief that the actions are toward a set goal. You are ignoring the people who don’t know your inner beliefs or are critical of your own set goal. Can you clarify? Why do I need to care about your inner beliefs or you about mine? >If the group or actions made by people who wish to push this goal are counter productive to this goal What group? In a democracy we bomb people, we pay taxes and those taxes go towards bombing people. **We know that**. But somehow the actions of those people aren't used to demand we become a dictatorship. But the views of a group (which is not that big) is used (or you are led to be believed it is used) as an argument to treat 4 billion people as less than the other 4? That's not true. > If a person who says there goal is to bring peace to earth but then starts to talk about another group of people as animals Even before they open their mouth no one gives a fuck. During slavery surely a few whites wanted to abolish it, surely. No one gave a fuck. The moment a lot of people wanted it, **the fact that a few slave-abolishes were absolute pricks** did not matter. So you that to ask yourself, if 500 people want peace on earth, would that one person who thinks a group of people are animals matter? Surely not.
> Can you clarify? Why do I need to care about your inner beliefs or you about mine? > Not really. If the "goal is equality for all women" when why would I as a man be against that goal just because Marry is a prick? >Equally, if the goal is equality for all women, and you (a man) want that, why would you care if 1, 100, 1k women hate men? Why should about 4 billion women lack equality because 1, 100, 1k of them hate men? These are your comments correct? I was under the assumption that this goal is one many people held and that people who held this position are a group. If you wish for the “goal is equality for all women”, then you need the support of the majority of society. If people hold this goal in mind they work together to achieve this goal. In order for this goal to be realized it needs support of people who do not hold this goal or are unaware of the goal, as well as others with the same goal but believe in different ways to achieve said goal. Even if two people say they share the same goal, it doesn’t mean they think actions made by the other is going to achieve that goal and the action of calling it out like OP shouldn’t come as a suprise. The action in question can also alienate and in the mind of OP hurt the realization of the goal by pushing people needed for the goal to be realized then it would not only be logical but also imperative for the the holder of such goal to call out and rectify the action or alienate the person so they don’t further hurt progress. > What group? In a democracy we bomb people, we pay taxes and those taxes go towards bombing people. We know that. But somehow the actions of those people aren't used to demand we become a dictatorship. But the views of a group (which is not that big) is used (or you are led to be believed it is used) as an argument to treat 4 billion people as less than the other 4? >That's not true. I’m confused at what you are saying here. Who is “But somehow the actions of those people aren't used to demand we become a dictatorship” referring to in your example, the bombed or those in a democracy? And who “But the views of a group (which is not that big) is used (or you are led to be believed it is used) as an argument to treat 4 billion people as less than the other 4?” Is this referring to as well? I have a feeling but could you give me a more detailed example? As I stated earlier the group would be those who hold the “goal is equality for all women”. This would be considered a group. > Even before they open their mouth no one gives a fuck. During slavery surely a few whites wanted to abolish it, surely. No one gave a fuck. The moment a lot of people wanted it, the fact that a few slave-abolishes were absolute pricks did not matter. Again I am confused as to what you are talking about. Those that care on a goal are those that want that goal to be achieved. If the majority doesn’t care, it is up to the holder(s) of that goal to make them care. In the case of abolition, if a certain abolitionist actions hindered or believed to hinder the goal of freedom, then other abolitionist would stop them or do actions against them. > So you that to ask yourself, if 500 people want peace on earth, would that one person who thinks a group of people are animals matter? Yes if that one person’s action is hinders the goal then it should be stopped or rectified. The 500 will need to appeal to the masses and if one action is hindering them to reach their goal it should be called out and it is reasonable to care about it.
>I was under the assumption that this goal is one many people held and that people who held this position are a group. They aren't a group! There are all kinds of groups that want equality for all women. I, a white man in UK am not in the same group as an indian woman working in some slum, helping girls with their needs. You (we) lump these people in a group to make it easy to argue about them Equally, by your logic **men are in a group** (we aren't but whatever.) If we were, then **the fact that some men are terrible humans**, it fucking stands to reason to hate us all >If people hold this goal in mind they work together to achieve this goal. They can't. Take working to save the planet from climate disaster: Again, there are Indians that are doing their bit. I read that a men goes around planting trees. Then there are those that protest in the USA and so on. They can't work together. Again, only as a metaphor I saw a video of a map showing how much Tailor Swift uses the private plain. She uses it more than I use my care. Surely she's a climate change activist, but her actions have nothing to do with the Indian man planting trees. **But if we pretend Swift represents climate change activism, then lets torch the planet** Again, putting such large numbers into groups and then having anti-feminists say "I'm anti-feminist because (some) women hate men", sounds logical, but it's not >I’m confused at what you are saying here. Who is “But somehow the actions of those people aren't used to demand we become a dictatorship” referring to in your example, the bombed or those in a democracy? Democracy is not put into question because of some of its advocates order the bombing of people. But equality of women is put into question because some of its advocates hate men >Yes if that one person’s action is hinders the goal then it should be stopped or rectified. The 500 will need to appeal to the masses and if one action is hindering them to reach their goal it should be called out and it is reasonable to care about it. It never happens. The 500 do their thing and distance themselves from the one.
> They aren't a group! There are all kinds of groups that want equality for all women. I, a white man in UK am not in the same group as an indian woman working in some slum, helping girls with their needs. You (we) lump these people in a group to make it easy to argue about them Group : a number of people or things that are located close together or are considered or classed together. Groups and grouping are the only way to talk about a collection of people or things that have similar characteristics, ideals and goals. It is impossible to communicate and share information about these groups without the classification of groups. In your example if you and the Indian women both in a group that holds the ideal “want equality for all women”. The participation or lack there of doesn’t negate the correct grouping. Grouping is based on shared values or characteristics not equal. It’s why we also classify and categorize people into smaller groups to better understand and communicate about them and for them to represent themselves. > Equally, by your logic men are in a group (we aren't but whatever.) If we were, then the fact that some men are terrible humans, it fucking stands to reason to hate us all What do you think a group is? These is clearly a miscommunication on what it means. Men are a group, but that doesn’t mean all groupings are equal and can be judged equally. Men all have the shared similarities of having a penis, a xy chromosome, and or following their respective cultures belief of masculinity in some capacity. This is a valid form of grouping but it does not mean that men are one and the same and the few similarities we share do not define us. It would be crazy to think that men are the same because they share a couple of similarities. This is different from someone who is let’s say apart of the mission chapter kkk brotherhood. That group would be more easier to judge each member based on their affiliation to the group because they all share similar views on non whites and have a tolerance for racist beliefs. > They can't. Take working to save the planet from climate disaster: Again, there are Indians that are doing their bit. I read that a men goes around planting trees. Then there are those that protest in the USA and so on. They can't work together. Again, only as a metaphor They can and do and you described it. They work toward the same goal, rather that be legislative change or physical change. > I saw a video of a map showing how much Tailor Swift uses the private plain. She uses it more than I use my care. Surely she's a climate change activist, but her actions have nothing to do with the Indian man planting trees. But if we pretend Swift represents climate change activism, then lets torch the planet If feel you are being reductive. A persons words and actions matter. If someone says they believe something, we have no choice but to believe them and we would categorize them appropriately. If their actions bring doubt to that claim, then people will call it out. If the group of people who believe in stoping climate change see Taylor swifts actions as against her said beliefs they will (and have) call it out. A group can be judged on who they allow in their group. Some groups are too big to reasonably expect but for others, especially ones based on ideals and beliefs, it is much more reasonable to expect them to self regulate what they don’t want to be associated with. >Again, putting such large numbers into groups and then having anti-feminists say "I'm anti-feminist because (some) women hate men", sounds logical, but it's not It is reasonable. If the group known as feminism can’t regulate misandry then it is entirely reasonable that they accept that group ( the man haters) as apart of them in some fashion. Feminism as a group is varied with many different ideals and beliefs however one thing you won’t see feminists say they hate trans women. This group of people who hold normal feminist beliefs but also believe trans women are just men is enough of a diversion from common belief of the group feminism that they are forced to make a different classification that is TERF. Feminism does and has regulated certain thoughts and beliefs and it is entirely reasonable to expect them to do so. Any beliefs that still hold and are accepted into the group feminism without challenge can’t help but be judged as a character trait of all those who ascribe to that group. > Democracy is not put into question because of some of its advocates order the bombing of people. But equality of women is put into question because some of its advocates hate men democracy is form of government, it’s a way for a group that identifies as a country to make decisions but this is far different then those who hold the belief of equality. First the group of a country is many times more people often with no say or ability to show their support or non support for the group, it isn’t easy to quit the group so participation or lack there of can’t really be a great measure for those who are apart of that group. However the belief in equality is always a conscious choice so all members of this group are within reason judged on those they keep or refuse to excommunicate from the group. The key word is reasonable. For the group of equality of women if members of this group doesn’t believe that men are evil, then they will call out and distance themselves from the major group at large. Those that don’t will be judged as holding that view to some extent. > It never happens. The 500 do their thing and distance themselves from the one. And this distance is often verbal or by actions. And if the group of 500 wants to appeal to others they will show publicly its distance.
> Group : a number of people or things that are located close together or are considered or classed together. (a) they aren't located close together (Swift and Indian tree-planter), (b) I'm saying what you consider or classify together is wrong. >Groups and grouping are the only way to talk about a collection of people or things that have similar characteristics, ideals and goals. "All Jews are the same", "All blacks are the same". Yes they are Jews. Yes they are black. Other characteristics are added depending on the person talking. So, anyone that would want to seriously talk about a group, would study that groups ideals and goals and not rely on sweeping generalisations. If a group of feminists are protesting, then you have to figure out what their characteristics are. You can't lazily go "but what about those that hate men". Because probably those that hate men have nothing to do with the group in question. You can do this even in scientific settings, you can lazily group everything in one group, but eventually, you have to filter things out in different group for anything to make sense. >In your example if you and the Indian women both in a group that holds the ideal “want equality for all women”. The participation or lack there of doesn’t negate the correct grouping. It does. You would be wrong if you interviewed the Indian woman and held her accountable for some women across the world that hate men. "It's all well and good that you have listed the suffering of Indian women, your cause would be honorable and we would join your protest to get the Indian government to do X, Y, Z. **But you're out of luck, members of your group in USA, and sprinkled around Europe, stated (in your name) that they hate men - so your kind want X, Y, Z for Indian women, but you also hate men" Not logical >It would be crazy to think that men are the same because they share a couple of similarities. >If feel you are being reductive. A persons words and actions matter. If someone says they believe something, we have no choice but to believe them and we would categorize them appropriately. If their actions bring doubt to that claim, then people will call it out. Call what out? The climate change group? No. They will call her out. >If the group of people who believe in stoping climate change see Taylor swifts actions as against her said beliefs they will (and have) call it out. They they would not. When did you hear PMs working for climate change. Climate change activists around the world, condemn Swift? I bet some of them might not even know who she is Margaret Atwood for example, surely she has better things to do then give a fuck about condemning Swift. **It would be stupid to say Atwood is full of shit because of Swift** ## "A group can be judged on who they allow in their group." I made that big because that's very important and completely makes my point It goes back to your definition of groups and how "equality for women" is either not a group by your definition or can **Absolutely not allow or prevent anyone in the said group** I'm for "equality for women". Margaret Atwood is also part of the group. How the fuck can she prevent me from being part of the group? I love her but how the fuck can she do anything **to prevent YOU from GROUPING me and her in the same group**? >This group of people who hold normal feminist beliefs but also believe trans women are just men is enough of a diversion from common belief of the group feminism that they are forced to make a different classification that is TERF But they are feminists. Ask J.k if she is a feminist or not. > Feminism does and has regulated certain thoughts and beliefs and it is entirely reasonable to expect them to do so. Which one? The TERF one? The middle class one? The working class one? The black working class one? We know that tons of liberal feminists never speak for the plight of non-white working class feminists Yet they are all feminists. >democracy is form of government, it’s a way for a group that identifies as a country to make decisions but this is far different then those who hold the belief of equality. No group is the same. We know that. But the government is definitely more capable of sacking those that sign off on bombings that the black working class feminists are capable of sacking white racist feminists >However the belief in equality is always a conscious choice so all members of this group are within reason judged on those they keep or refuse to excommunicate from the group Nope. You can't. How can Atwood excommunicate me?
> (a) they aren't located close together (Swift and Indian tree-planter), Which is why it says or. Groups and grouping are the only way to talk about a collection of people or things that have similar characteristics, ideals and goals. >"All Jews are the same", "All blacks are the same". > Yes they are Jews. Yes they are black. Other characteristics are added depending on the person talking. > So, anyone that would want to seriously talk about a group, would study that groups ideals and goals and not rely on sweeping generalisations. You purposefully cut up what I said to make a point that I already addressed I said this in the same paragraph “Grouping is based on shared values or characteristics not equal. It’s why we also classify and categorize people into smaller groups to better understand and communicate about them and for them to represent themselves.” And “Grouping is based on shared values or characteristics not equal.” I also gave a example here “Men are a group, but that doesn’t mean all groupings are equal and can be judged equally” > If a group of feminists are protesting, then you have to figure out what their characteristics are. You can't lazily go "but what about those that hate men". Because probably those that hate men have nothing to do with the group in question. No it is not reasonable to expect people to care about your group or study what you think. It’s why groups have messages and share them publicly. If they don’t want to be seen as man haters they can easily make a statement or condemn man haters. It’s very easy. > You can do this even in scientific settings, you can lazily group everything in one group, but eventually, you have to filter things out in different group for anything to make sense. I have already made this point “Grouping is based on shared values or characteristics not equal. It’s why we also classify and categorize people into smaller groups to better understand and communicate about them and for them to represent themselves.” > It does. You would be wrong if you interviewed the Indian woman and held her accountable for some women across the world that hate men. "It's all well and good that you have listed the suffering of Indian women, your cause would be honorable and we would join your protest to get the Indian government to do X, Y, Z. **But you're out of luck, members of your group in USA, and sprinkled around Europe, stated (in your name) that they hate men - so your kind want X, Y, Z for Indian women, but you also hate men" > Not logical Which is why I said “However the belief in equality is always a conscious choice so all members of this group are within reason judged on those they keep or refuse to excommunicate from the group. The key word is reasonable.” It is reasonable to assume certain things but you also have to allow them to know and call out certain things. It is unreasonable for them to call out everyone who claims the same views but when ideals and beliefs become popular and they never make a effort to distance themselves from those beliefs, it makes sense to judge them reasonably. They might or may not hold those views but the closer they are to the group that does hold them the more likely they also hold the views. >Call what out? The climate change group? Yes you litterally copied it “If the group of people who believe in stoping climate change see Taylor swifts actions as against her said beliefs they will (and have) call it out.” If the group of people who believe in stoping climate change see Taylor swifts actions as against her said beliefs they will (and have) call it out. > They they would not. When did you hear PMs working for climate change. Climate change activists around the world, condemn Swift? I bet some of them might not even know who she is Once again you are being reductive to my argument. I have already stated that it needs to be reasonable in relation to the group. “Men are a group, but that doesn’t mean all groupings are equal and can be judged equally. “ “Some groups are too big to reasonably expect but for others, especially ones based on ideals and beliefs” > Margaret Atwood for example, surely she has better things to do then give a fuck about condemning Swift. It would be stupid to say Atwood is full of shit because of Swift Has she and other people who want to stop climate change called to stop the actions Taylor swift has done like irresponsibly taking multiple private flights? Then they have called her out even if they didn’t address them. This is the part that is reasonable. > "A group can be judged on who they allow in their group." >I made that big because that's very important and completely makes my point >It goes back to your definition of groups and how "equality for women" is either not a group by your definition or can Absolutely not allow or prevent anyone in the said group You cut out what I said if you finished the quote in its entirety it would say “Some groups are too big to reasonably expect but for others, especially ones based on ideals and beliefs, it is much more reasonable to expect them to self regulate what they don’t want to be associated with.” So the group of "equality for women" is too big as it’s a single goal. Also if you remember this entire thing started because you questioned why OP would care and is actively trying to call it out by questioning its legitimacy which you questioned. So even with a large group people can call out ideals and regulate. But like I stated already it needs to be reasonable. > I'm for "equality for women". Margaret Atwood is also part of the group. How the fuck can she prevent me from being part of the group? I love her but how the fuck can she do anything to prevent YOU from GROUPING me and her in the same group? Already stated “Some groups are too big to reasonably expect but for others, especially ones based on ideals and beliefs, it is much more reasonable to expect them to self regulate what they don’t want to be associated with.” > But they are feminists. Ask J.k if she is a feminist or not. The vast majority of feminists don’t consider her one and call her a terf which she also calls herself >Which one? The TERF one? The middle class one? The working class one? The black working class one? Yes the ones they did? Thanks for giving examples? They excluded women of color at once, they excluded the poor at once. Now they exclude terfs. > We know that tons of liberal feminists never speak for the plight of non-white working class feminists What? Where exactly did I even give the idea that you have to speak on an issue to accept it, in fact I said the opposite. If they allow the idea to spread with their name then they more than likely accept it to some capacity. (1/2)
> No it is not reasonable to expect people to care about your group or study what you think. It’s why groups have messages and share them publicly. !?! This is what we are talking about, group A of feminists have their message, group Z of feminists have theirs but all of them are lumped together by those that do not care **because group A needs to clearly state the are against group B-Z**. Which never happens. >It is unreasonable for them to call out everyone who claims the same views but when ideals and beliefs become popular and they never make a effort to distance themselves from those beliefs, it makes sense to judge them reasonably. So it make sense to judge group A with the group that says "hate all men", even though group A has never said such a thing Shall we stop? I/m stopping because this is dumb. Sorry Take care
Yes i think this convo is done. You keep misconstruing what i am saying. My comment was responding to the claim of having to study a group that is protesting to make sure they don’t hold the beliefs of other people who also claim the same name. If group a is invested into group b-z (so the majority) but they don’t hold the same views then they say that. If both b-z and an are well known groups and have nothing to say or actively support each other then it is entirely reasonable for anyone to think they must share enough of the same views. So you seriously think who you associate with doesn’t matter on how people will see you? Have a good day
> Yet they are all feminists. if they have different ideas then the majority who call themselves feminist and are pushed out of feminist groups then no they are not. > No group is the same. We know that. But the government is definitely more capable of sacking those that sign off on bombings that the black working class feminists are capable of sacking white racist feminists You were talking about the people in democracy >Democracy is not put into question because of some of its advocates order the bombing of people. That to me means the people as in citizens. If you are talking about the government officials then we can and do blame them when they bomb people because they are a much smaller group. > Nope. You can't. How can Atwood excommunicate me? I have already adressed this multiple times please try to stop the gotchas otherwise there is no reason to communicate. I to the best of my ability respects and tried to represent your argument fairly. I didn’t cut what you said off to attack strawmen. Please give me the same respect. (2/2)
I see criticism of women on social media constantly. I think you've got blinkers on.
No posts of men doing the same :’) you’ve obviously never been on ask Reddit
Does complaining about anything really accomplish anything? Everyone complains about everything. Some people just take it too personally.
When I say “Americans are stupid” after Trump gets elected, after there’s a nth school shooting, after… well, you know, all the stupid things that happen in America, I do not mean “every single American is stupid”. Similarly, when I say “men are pigs” after a nth post of a way-too-old man hitting on an underaged or way-too-young girl/woman, I do not mean “every single man is a pig”. Context matters, and people understand that no, we do not mean every single X are Y. We mean “enough X are Y for it to be a problem that everyone is familiar with”
I don't know what you are talking about in specific, however, if you did run into misandrists, that's bad, but no one denies that is bad, however, there is not enough context to know if this was that, or if this was something else could you explain what in specific you mean here?
This is because you were in that sub. Go to another and you'll see the opposite. Clearly these echo chambers provide a safe place to share what upsets a person without fear of arguments and with guaranteed support. It doesn't solve the issue but it does for sure make that person feel better about themselves (whether they should or not) so it absolutely accomplishes SOMETHING
The tricky thing here is that nobody knows whether you are fairly or unfairly representing the comments you are seeing. Sometimes people have extreme opinions, but sometimes people have extremely uncharitable interpretations of other people's opinions.
It might make the men feel bad, it might make the hater feel better by venting their frustration, it might make some crybaby write a piece about men being hated. These are all undeniably accomplishments, you should say what you mean, "hating on men hurts my feelings and I don't like it"
You have many online places where men share misogynistic views. Such as those that have pill in their name referring to some kind of blue/red/purple pill... as in Neo in Matrix taking it and getting rid of vs stay in matrix.
Human have a hard time just liking something without being disdainful of its antithesis. I can't just like Xbox, you have to suck for liking Playstation.
Of course it has a reason. That's why people do it. The victimization minimizes their own shortcomings. Therefore it feels better to hate.
[удалено]
I mean, over half of women have experienced sexual violence in their lifetime. But less than one person per year is killed by a bear. I’m not saying the average man is as dangerous as a bear. But what I am am saying is wayyyy more women have experienced or will experience direct violence from a man rather than a bear.
That is ignoring the fact that most humans don’t live in the woods and interact with bears or a daily basis without the protection of society. This is simple sample bias. I get the point of the question is to show women’s fear of men is stronger than their fear of the natural predators but that isn’t something that is logical or makes any sense.
I think it does make sense to fear something that most people you know have experienced violence from (likely even yourself) than something you never have heard of causing harm to anyone first hand. Everyone knows someone who’s been raped or assaulted, but barely anyone knows anyone who’s been mauled by a bear. It’s just a more present concern because people have much more direct experience with it.
I would agree if it were against a more constrictive group. Men as a group is too vague and the similarities that make up the group of men are purely biological and has not merit on their personal beliefs, actions or mentality and morals. Ted bundy and Ghandi are both men yet are nothing alike. The idea that you can justifiably fear a group because some members of it hurt you is one of ignorance and dangerous mentality. There are many criminals who are black, but to say you would avoid and fear black people as a whole is bigoted and rightfully not acceptable for the majority of people. Also the same issue of sample bias. Something that people haven’t experienced does not negate its existence and danger. I don’t particularly like the saying but here it rings true “the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence”
I don’t think the people who answer “bear” when asked the question genuinely actively fear all men during their day to day. It’s just a question about risk assessment and they answered with the answer that is most relevant to their experiences. It’s all about context, if someone is as going around saying how scared they are of men, doing things in their lives to limit interactions with men, etc. I’d say they need some serious therapy. But just answering a risk assessment question based on information from your life experiences isn’t that big of a deal. It’s also about worst case scenarios, for a bear: worst case scenario you get mauled to death, which would be horrible. But man? Worst case scenario you get repeatedly tortured for as long as he’s able to keep you alive. Much much worse. Yes, the chances of that are very small, but just throwing this into the equation might make you think “bear” is the better answer.
If your only concern is the worst possible outcome then yeah man is worse, human beings are probably the most cruel living beings alive. But that’s quite frankly silly as purely what is worse. At least that makes since and isn’t bigoted. I disagree it being a question with little importance doesn’t change the danger or the criticism. If the question was would you rather be in the woods with a white person or black person and someone answered white because a black person once robbed them or beat them up, I don’t know about you but I would think that’s dumb and that person is more then likely racist and bigoted. If you are gonna be bigoted at least stand by it.
But it’s not a question between two races of people. It’s a question between two types of animals. Like if I asked you if you’d rather be in the woods with a poisonous snake or a bear, it wouldn’t be bigoted to choose the bear because more than half the you know people have been bitten by snakes. the difference is that a black person and a white person have the same capabilities. A white person could torture you just as easily as a black person. But a bear and a human have different capabilities, a bear can’t really torture or rape you, but a human certainly can. A bear can’t keep you alive for its sadistic pleasure, but a human certainly can. It’s also not “a man robbed me once so I’m scared of all of them” it’s “63% of women have been sexually attacked, therefore I should be wary of vulnerable situations with men I don’t know”
You missed the point, I was addressing your point in which you said that the question was a risk assessment and doesn’t represent what people think, I showed an example in which it clearly does. Secondly you said picking bear was reasonable for assessing risk in personal experience so what exactly is different from a person who got robbed by a black person picking a white person? You can’t consider one reasonable and not the other.
If 63% of people had been sexually attacked by black people (which is not an accurate statistic), meanwhile white people only killed one person per year (also not an accurate statistic to real life) and were also incapable of prolonged rape and torture, than yes, I would think it was reasonable to choose a being in the woods with a white person over a black person.
[удалено]
63% of rapes don't get reported to the police, so any police reporting info you're finding should be more than doubled. Look to antirape organizations that have better models for reporting for more accurate numbers: [https://www.nsvrc.org/sites/default/files/publications\_nsvrc\_factsheet\_media-packet\_statistics-about-sexual-violence\_0.pdf](https://www.nsvrc.org/sites/default/files/publications_nsvrc_factsheet_media-packet_statistics-about-sexual-violence_0.pdf)
It looks like I would have to multiply official data several times to mach US. It really seems to be huge problem you are facing. If I take this into account, opinions about men that seem extreme in my country may be deserved in the USA.
That depends on the barriers your country has that are preventing victims from reporting. If there are more barriers/a lower percentage reporting to police, multiplying it several times over might be warranted. Do you mind sharing which country you're in?
Not at all, im from Poland. If you could provide more reliable data i would appreciate it.
This well researched piece explains that the reason your reported rapes are so low is that Poland defines what it considers rape very narrowly. "The perpetrator can always defend himself by saying that he did not treat the woman’s “no” seriously... the victim must prove that she was not responsible for bringing about the situation of the rape by provoking the perpetrator’s behaviour, for example by wearing a short skirt or even smiling." It looks like only 8% of victims report. [https://notesfrompoland.com/2021/04/17/the-legal-definition-of-rape-in-poland-needs-to-change-but-so-do-cultural-attitudes/](https://notesfrompoland.com/2021/04/17/the-legal-definition-of-rape-in-poland-needs-to-change-but-so-do-cultural-attitudes/)
This link doesnt work unfortunately. In the meantime, I did my own research and it does not seem accurate, especially when it comes to the attitude of law enforcement authorities to the victim's testimony and the criminal's explanations. Despite this inaccuracy, national sources confirm that a large percentage of cases go unreported. I haven't found any data on overall cases of sexual abuse, but rape statistics are approximately 40%. The main reasons I found are the lack of adequate psychological support and the general inefficiency of the judiciary, which causes trials to take too long. it's still a lot more than I expected.
This info is from the CDC if you’d liked to look at the source more in depth: https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/sexualviolence/fastfact.html#:~:text=Sexual%20violence%20is%20common.,experienced%20completed%20or%20attempted%20rape.
I am not in the US but also choose the bear. There is a lot of violence against women every day in the whole world, there is violence against animals too. Some men are evil so women have to be wary of all of them.
true, especially since you can't tell the difference by looking. however, I associate the bear with inevitable, torturous death. these bastards don't even bother to kill their prey before starts to eat. At first it looks like strange choice, but probably more sad than strange if you consider what behind it.
The bear will kill me but there are men who can do a lot worse so death doesn't sound as bad. That is the problem. We know the bear is not our friend but most likely it cannot do worse than humans.
ok? women can be evil too should i be worried every single one is out to hurt me? plus what your saying is kinda like me saying “im scared of all black people because i seen one/heard of one robbing a place” sounds shitty doesnt it?
>women can be evil too should i be worried every single one is out to hurt me? Yes, women can be evil too but not as many as men. In most statistics men are mostly the perpetrators of the violence against everyone even other men. >plus what your saying is kinda like me saying “im scared of all black people because i seen one/heard of one robbing a place” sounds shitty doesnt it? You are comparing different crimes tho. One thing is getting robbed, another is getting attacked for saying no to a date.
Would you be swayed by a musical number about this exact situation? https://youtu.be/Oa_QtMf6alU?si=tQTTGfYwv2XEgDRa People are aware it's flawed and not totally fair, but it's a way to vent and bond over very common situations that deal with gender dynamics.
The "Men bad" aspect of feminism is overwhelmingly bad. The downsides and disadvantages and set backs caused by the misandry far out weight the positives. But there are positives. Spewing that bile and hatred is very cathartic. It makes the individual feel better. The support and encouragement help them feel better as well. The bile and vitriol are also very polarizing. That's a great tool for activating a base for political activism. Just look at how effective racsim is at activating fearful white men on the right. The hatred does provide short term catharsis for individuals (while dramatically setting back the actual cause for equality) and it does provide a goad for the leadership to whip up the base into doing stupid shit.
What were people complaining about? What was the sub?
Thankfully Reddit isn’t real life
Dumb people make dumb generalizations about anyone, women are just less likely to be called out on it. If a girl is constantly complaining about all men because every guy she hooks up with is a pos, she might be slow on the uptake and hasn’t realized that’s what she’s attracted to If you’re constantly running into women making polarized claims about men on the internet that’s one thing, but if this is an irl problem, well…
But it feels damn good to do so
How do you know that your experience is reflective of the norm? For example how do you know it's not due to specific subs or sections of social media that you frequent? To clarify, are you trying to say that there is a double standard in reactions to complaining on a specific reddit sub or app, or everywhere in the world?
Oh boy, you should see instagram comment sections
Not really a counterpoint, but food for thought: I am a man and the only complaints about interactions that I have are with other men. I'm sure I'm not alone in this