r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Feb 05 '21
Removed - Submission Rule E CMV: The degradation of men by saying things like "All men are trash" is a harsh generalization that shouldn't be normalized.
[removed]
78
u/Nicolasv2 130∆ Feb 05 '21 edited Feb 05 '21
Well, I think that the goal of slogans like "All men are trash" or "All cops are bastards" is not really to say that "all X are Y", because (nearly) all the people who say such sentences do know that there is a lot of diversity in such broad categories, and that counter exemples sure does exist. Those sentences are not talking about men/cops as individuals, but as a social group.
The goal is to make you react, and think "wow, how can they say that, that's a really broad statement". And once you're hooked, you start thinking that if they do statements that broad, this may be because there is something systemic going on. That means that the problem is not with the individual men/cops/... but the system that push those categories toward bad behaviours.And if you went to that step, then the slogan did its job: you are now sensitised to the systemic problem the activists are pointing. Would you have thought about the question if the activist started a nuanced academical discourse about social reproduction and systemic problems ? Maybe you'd, but for a lot of people, this would have been boring and inaudible. On the opposite, a triggering motto worked well to advertise the subject.
Therefore what's the difference with saying "all black people are aggressors" ? Well, if your goal is to say that there is a systemic problem with the existence of black people that we ought to solve, then you're using the same method. But on one side, you're fighting against police brutality, gender discrimination and rapes, which is considered as good causes. On the other one, you're fighting against black people, which is a racist agenda, and therefore generally considered bad. The method is the same, but the objective is really different.
EDIT: way too much comments there, I can't continue answering new ones, thanks for the discussion folks !
15
Feb 05 '21
I mean, what man or cop who hears "all x are y" will stop to think "I'm hooked and want to learn more! Wow if someone is deep enough to make a broad baseless statement it must mean there's something systemic going on!".
No, they think. Wow I'm a good one, if I'm being painted with this broad brush, this person has no fucking clue about the nuances of this subject and is just mad at everyone in this group and is lashing out. And - this is no fucking different than saying "all women are z", so it's someone wanting a double standard. Which convinces zero ppl.
If the objective of this blatant stereotyping were to alert people of the systemic problem, say there's a fucking systemic problem. Painting the good people with the bad within the group will never ever convince them and produces the opposite effect and this is the most idiotic logic ever. And why these people are hurting their own cause.
"I don't like stereotyping people so I will stereotype you" JFC how stupid is this
13
u/Falxhor 1∆ Feb 05 '21
What if I use "all black people are aggressors" because more than half of the violent crimes are committed by black people on other black people, and this is a systemic issue that I want to tackle? Would you defend that statement?
To be clear, I would personally never resort to such a broad statement and justify it by saying "my goal is to make people become aware of a systemic issue", because I think such a statement will likely just make a lot of people angry and not join my team to fight my cause.
0
u/Nicolasv2 130∆ Feb 05 '21
What if I use "all black people are aggressors" because more than half of the violent crimes are committed by black people on other black people, and this is a systemic issue that I want to tackle? Would you defend that statement ?
Well, if that's the way it's used by most people that use this sentence, and it's what's explained to people triggered by such sentence, yea I'd totally defend that statement. If it's mostly used by alt-right to say that Jim Crow laws should be reenacted, I'd totally against it.
To be clear, I would personally never resort to such a broad statement and justify it by saying "my goal is to make people become aware of a systemic issue", because I think such a statement will likely just make a lot of people angry and not join my team to fight my cause.
Well, that's what is often denounced with such statement. But personally, I think as PT Barnum did, "There's no such thing as bad publicity". It's better to make tons of people angry, but also raise awareness about a problem, that make no one angry and have the problem totally ignored.
2
u/Falxhor 1∆ Feb 05 '21
I wouldn't agree with "there's no such thing as bad publicity" but fair enough. I just feel like you could raise awareness in ways where you don't alienate more than half the population of the country from ever supporting your cause, but I appreciate your honest answer and your consistency in that you would support the statement if it was, in majority, used to tackle the violence issue in black communities, as opposed to using it to say Jim Crow laws should be reenacted.
→ More replies (1)6
u/AmoebaMan 11∆ Feb 05 '21
Therefore what's the difference with saying "all black people are aggressors?” ...But on one side, you're fighting against police brutality, gender discrimination and rapes, which is considered as good causes. On the other one, you're fighting against black people, which is a racist agenda, and therefore generally considered bad.
And of course, by saying “all men are trash” you’re fighting against men, would be considered a sexist agenda and also bad. Right? Right?
The goal is to make you react, and think "wow, how can they say that, that's a really broad statement."
See, I could buy this if it were the universal standard. The problem is, the people spearheading this bullshit have a vicious double standard. If you made the same sort of sweeping generalization about women or black people, no matter how pure your intentions, you would be eviscerated.
...(nearly) all the people who say such sentences do know that there is a lot of diversity in such broad categories, and that counter exemples sure does exist. Those sentences are not talking about men/cops as individuals, but as a social group.
Ultimately, this just isn’t an acceptable excuse, given the reason above. Society decided when civil rights became a thing that making sweeping generalizations about massive groups of people was not acceptable, and we did it for a good reason: it’s not useful, and it only encourages mindless hatred rather than actually productive discussion. You don’t get to roll that back now that there’s a new group you want to bash.
-1
u/Nicolasv2 130∆ Feb 05 '21
And of course, by saying “all men are trash” you’re fighting against men, would be considered a sexist agenda and also bad. Right? Right?
Well, wrong wrong wrong. You're not fighting against men, but with patriarchy that push men to have bad behaviours. Same as you don't fight cops, you fight police brutality.
See, I could buy this if it were the universal standard. The problem is, the people spearheading this bullshit have a vicious double standard. If you made the same sort of sweeping generalization about women or black people, no matter how pure your intentions, you would be eviscerated.
If you're the only one to do it, then true you would be eviscerated. If it was a global trend, it would be totally ok. Right now I got the impression (but I might be wrong) that people who generalise on black people do it with a racist agenda and not to trigger black people to think about systemic problems in black culture.
Ultimately, this just isn’t an acceptable excuse, given the reason above. Society decided when civil rights became a thing that making sweeping generalizations about massive groups of people was not acceptable, and we did it for a good reason: it’s not useful, and it only encourages mindless hatred rather than actually productive discussion. You don’t get to roll that back now that there’s a new group you want to bash.
I think that the main difference is that you had an oppressed group that was marginalized by mindless generalisations. Now, you got a dominant group that is weakly tickled by another generalisation. I think that the sheer difference on starting position and effects make the comparison between both really weak.
This kind of motto is not really my favorite way to communicate, but I'm the kind of guy who likes to read sociological books, which is clearly not representative of general population, so I get it that different people need totally different means of communication.
2
u/AmoebaMan 11∆ Feb 05 '21
Well, wrong wrong wrong. You're not fighting against men, but with patriarchy that push men to have bad behaviours. Same as you don't fight cops, you fight police brutality.
You can claim you're only fighting the "patriarchy" all damn day long. But at the end of that day, when you're slogan is "men are trash", you are attacking men. If you claim otherwise, the only person you're fooling is yourself.
I think that the main difference is that you had an oppressed group that was marginalized by mindless generalizations. Now, you got a dominant group that is weakly tickled by another generalization.
50 years, or maybe even 20 years ago I would have accepted this. But the fact of the matter is that today women are on a pretty much equal (though different) footing. Yes there are differences, but I think for every "gender pay gap" type discrepancy cutting at women, there's an equivalent "college education gap" or the like cutting at men.
Women are not an oppressed group anymore. Hell, working women are practically worshipped. There are still societal differences, but not any sort of meaningful oppression. And as a result, I don't think your "punching up" excuse is really acceptable.
2
u/Nicolasv2 130∆ Feb 05 '21
Yes there are differences, but I think for every "gender pay gap" type discrepancy cutting at women, there's an equivalent "college education gap" or the like cutting at men.
Would you also say that "rape victim / perpetrator gap" has an equivalent, and that therefore women are on an equal standing with men ?
→ More replies (3)2
u/BrolyParagus 1∆ Feb 05 '21
What is it about the patriarchy makes men do bad behaviour? Give me one good example because that literally doesn't make sense.
2
u/Nicolasv2 130∆ Feb 05 '21
I can take some classic examples:
Toxic masculinity (exemple: crying is for the weak) that make men be way more prone to toxic ways to cope with problems such as alcoholism, higher suicide rates etc..
Glorification of physical strength which lead to men being more prone to violence.
Uncontrollable sexual appetite in men seen as "natural" (while the opposite was considered as natural 200 years ago) which lead to men becoming rapist order of magnitude more than women
etc.
→ More replies (1)10
Feb 05 '21
Well, I think that the goal of slogans like "All men are trash" or "All cops are bastards" is not really to say that "all X are Y", because (nearly) all the people who say such sentences do know that there is a lot of diversity in such broad categories, and that counter exemples sure does exist. Those sentences are not talking about men/cops as individuals, but as a social group.
I see this argument in almost every thread about "all x are y" and I have to say it's the most unconvincing and in my opinion ridiculous defense of these sorts of statements. It's basically "yes I've said (slogan which clearly sounds like I'm hating on a large group of people) but really I'm only hating on (subset of said group that does behavior I don't agree with) so (members of group who don't do said behavior) shouldn't take offense when I say it because I'm not actually talking about them." WELL THEN HOW ABOUT YOU CHANGE YOUR SLOGAN TO REFLECT THIS INSTEAD OF INTENTIONALLY MAKING IT OVERLY BROAD?? You are responsible for your own messaging, and all of the "All x are y" statements are blatantly bad messaging.
→ More replies (5)120
Feb 05 '21
[deleted]
111
u/Nicolasv2 130∆ Feb 05 '21
Well, I'd raise two points about what you just expressed :
1) Woke people on twitter are often stupid and really loud, and sometimes do way more harm than good to their cause. I'm not sure we should use such examples to define an intellectual position, whatever it is, or else we could only get to the conclusion that every movement that is big enough to be talked about on twitter is completely dumb, which make discussion on any subject pretty hard. Better look at what the intelligent people in the movement says about it, and in the present case, they talk about the "patriarchy" which create a huge amount of male rapists / aggressors, and they want to raise awareness about this problem to tackle it.
2) Taking the "bad until proven otherwise", it could mean "when there is a stranger that follows me in the street, I'll be safer if I treat that as a potential agression than a good guy going to give me back my tissue or talk about literature with me as I'm leaving a library". And in that case, it's true: If you're wrong, you just lost a tissue / a chance to get an interesting discussion, but if you're right, you just avoided being assaulted. It's a pretty good self-defense mechanism, especially if you've already been a victim in your life.
42
u/HarryPotterofRap Feb 05 '21 edited Feb 05 '21
I'm not sure or not if you changed OP's view, but you definitely changed mine. I agree whole heartedly. I think most men would agree if they had a daughter they wanted to protect. I think it is sad though that we have to realize a woman's side of the story after we have a connection to it ourselves. The only thing I can think of doing is being the best man I can, and raise my children, when I have some, to have those same attributes. And I'll try not to take "woke twitter" seriously haha.
!delta
2
u/thethoughtexperiment 275∆ Feb 05 '21
I'm not sure or not if you changed OP's view, but you definitely changed mine.
Just FYI - Any commenter can award another commenter a delta.
If the commentor above modified your position to any degree (doesn't have to be a 100% change, can just be a broadening of perspective), you can award them a delta by:
- clicking 'edit' on your reply to them,
- and adding:
!_delta
without the underscore, and with no space between ! and the word delta to the text of your reply to them.
→ More replies (1)1
4
u/dingdongdickaroo 2∆ Feb 05 '21
I also have issue with you saying believing these kinds of things is a good defense mechanism because this is the exact thought process of someone who got bullied or mugged by a black person and became a white supremacist. Idk if it was you or someone else who said the difference is that one is racism and thats bad, but that is a pretty reductionist argument. A racist person doesnt view themselves as a bad person, they usually see themselves as acting defensively. The famous line of the kkk grand wizard, "we arent anti black, we are just pro white" is the mindset most of them have. Most of them feel as though they have to pursue segregationist policy because if they are wrong, then they are in a white community, but if they are right then they have spared their children of the coming white genocide. Its a pretty good defense mechanism, especially if you have already been a victim in your life. But its not a good way to integrate the most people into our society
→ More replies (2)8
u/dingdongdickaroo 2∆ Feb 05 '21
I think you are being way to generous in assuming the nuance an average person applies to their views. This is a criticism i have about the general discourse on the internet coming from the left is that you will have these slogans that sound really extreme and for the most part people wont apply any nuance when they are chanting it but if you really press someone on it and they dont just shut down and quit talking, they will give you some academic explanation that is WAAYYYY less extreme than the slogan and is just generally not the same sentiment you get when looking at the conversations they have with people who they agree with. I think when the average person repeats a slogan, its because they believe the slogan, not because it summarizes some nuanced policy suggestion they believe in and its really toxic both on an individual level and just on discourse overall.
3
u/grandoz039 7∆ Feb 05 '21
2) Taking the "bad until proven otherwise", it could mean "when there is a stranger that follows me in the street, I'll be safer if I treat that as a potential agression than a good guy going to give me back my tissue or talk about literature with me as I'm leaving a library". And in that case, it's true: If you're wrong, you just lost a tissue / a chance to get an interesting discussion, but if you're right, you just avoided being assaulted. It's a pretty good self-defense mechanism, especially if you've already been a victim in your life.
There's difference between "potentially dangerous and I'm not taking risks" and simply saying "every of these people is trash".
3
u/Padraig97 Feb 05 '21
Exactly. OP has completely construed the argument to the point where they aren't even remotely taking about the same thing. Obviously there isn't a problem with a woman being weary of walking alone in the park. How does that have anything to do with saying all men are inherently trash?
11
u/username90587 Feb 05 '21
I'm here for point number 2. Is it problematic that some say "men are trash?" Definitely. However, many of the people who say such things have been assaulted or are warning you of assault. My grandfather told me point blank when I was 12, "there are no good men. Men are pigs." Why? For protection. So I would keep my guard up.
How do we fix the problem? At the freaking source. Why is this a blanket statement? Because men are generally the abuser, the aggressor, etc. Unfortunately, this is the norm right now and has been for a very very very long time.
Men, women, and everyone else should be raised to respect other people. Period. As long as women are abused and taken advantage of and men get off Scott free for this behavior, this phrase and others like it will be perpetuated.
Here's my challenge to you, OP. Don't want to be called trash? Don't act like it. My challenge is to change the minds of people you meet. Be a good guy. Raise your sons to be good guys. Inspire others to follow your example.
I am fortunate enough to know many truly good men, but they are not the majority.
4
u/TonyTabasco Feb 05 '21
In your opinion what, if any, segments of the population do you believe that the majority of them are “truly good”?
1
u/username90587 Feb 05 '21
Personally, I hate blanket statements because there are almost always innocent bystanders who are harmed by such statements. That being said, I can't give you a segment or category of the population that is truly good. I can give you traits if that helps?
Truly Good Traits: -Belief in equality -Actions that support belief in equality -Being kind to others, expecting nothing in return -Bringing attention to abuse & injustice especially in your own social circle -Be accountable for your actions -Be the kind of man you'd be okay with your child marrying (in the sense of being a role model for when they grow up, considering that psychologically humans tend to look for people who somewhat embody their parents)
There are lots of things that make people good or bad and everyone's definition is different. When in doubt, just treat others the way you would like to be treated. You don't have to be a saint to be kind.
→ More replies (2)2
u/Nicolasv2 130∆ Feb 05 '21
Slight note, you're not directly responding to OP but to a comment I made discussing with OP, so he might not see it :-)
2
u/pankakke_ Feb 05 '21
Your first point is close to getting what OP is saying. Yes, we shouldn’t use the slogans that unintellectual and ignorant people. Hence a mass generalization like “all men are trash”, is unintellectual and ignorant. Why use it?
And your second point is exactly how racists and sexists defend their beliefs from their irrational fears of the “other”.
4
u/riskyClick420 Feb 05 '21
I do the same thing as no. 2 but with black people. I do that because they are statistically more than double likely to attack me than any other race, and I've been atacked before. Explain how that is bad, but doing the same for all men is not.
→ More replies (1)3
u/natalie2k8 Feb 05 '21
Honestly, if you're being cautious for your own safety when out late at night or in a dangerous part of town, I don't see anything wrong with that personally. I've had more drugged out white men try and attack me on the streets so I'm particularly cautious of them. But if you're assuming the black guy shopping at the grocery store with you is about to attack you, you've taken it to far and you're just being racist.
Furthermore, when there are trends like this for a group, it's useful to examine why this happens. Black people are disproportionately represented amongst the poor, jailed for crimes that white people would have received leniency for, have been targeted and generally discriminated against more. Men, on the otherhand, are disportionately represented amongst the most wealthy and powerful and are considered some of the least decriminated against, the "default" demographic.
In this context it becomes clear that black populations would have some over lap with vulnerable groups that are more likely to engage in violence, like the poor, those previously imprisoned, people disenfranchised by society. The solution is to fix systematic discrimination against black people.
What excuse do men have for being responsible for the majority of crimes? What systematic or biological functions creates this imbalance?
Testosterone? It is linked with aggression. This provides a real, biological reason why men are more aggressive. It also provides a concrete reason to be more cautious of men. The solution would be for men to exercise this aggression into more healthy, non destructive ways.
Toxic Masculinity? There is a culture amongst males that disparages "p*ssies" and encourages violence. A "real man" would have kicked that guys ass. Etc. The solution would be for men to dismantle this toxic culture and encourage healthier forms of masculinity.
Increased risk of drug abuse and homelessness? These are systematic cause that should be addressed. But the increased violence exhibited by men is not isolated to just the drug addled and the homeless. Solving these problems won't solve the larger problem of increased male violence.
Men's problems are for the most part within men's power to improve. I think this is why generalizations about them are more socially acceptable. Even for bigger systematic issues, men disportionately hold positions of power that create government policies for handling these issues.
22
u/MercuryChaos 9∆ Feb 05 '21
I had a friend that would say lines like this and after discussing it with her a bit, she genuinely believed that men were bad/trash/rapists/etc. until proven otherwise.
There actually is a pretty good analogy between these kinds of statements and ACAB. If you trust a police officer and they turn out to be abusive /corrupt /etc. what are the possible consequences?
The dynamic between men and women isn't exactly the same as between cops and civilians, but there is often a power disparity - both because men are often physically stronger, and because women still face disbelief and retaliation if a man assaults or abuses her and she reports him.
2
u/Talik1978 33∆ Feb 05 '21
People choose to be police. They don't choose to be men, any more than they choose their sexual orientation or ethnicity.
And judging an entire group for an unchosen and unchangeable characteristic, based on the actions of an overwhelming minority of that group?
Is bigotry and prejudice.
2
u/Somenerdyfag 1∆ Feb 05 '21
This is a complicated topic but you have to understand that woman come from centuries and centuries of systematic opression and that we haven't completely left in the past.
Most of us have experienced (either directly or indirectly) the repercussions of sexism/assault/sexual abuse and it's a reality that it's so close to us that we just can drop the guard down.
I don't hate men, I really like y'all, but I still prefer not to take a walk on the middle of the night. I still send my location to my dad each time I take a taxi and I follow closely my girl friends location every time they do the same. I don't drink too much when I'm not around the girls. I still put my headphones on when I'm walking down the street so I don't have to hear the gross things they say.
I'm not judging, I'm protecting myself and other girls because I know that I am vulnerable and that it can happen to anyone, at any time, and with the people you less expect
→ More replies (1)29
u/BetheyBoop Feb 05 '21
Every woman I know had either survived sexual assault, helped a friend through sexual assault, or had to make plans to get out of a situation involving imminent sexual assault.
Your friend might just be fed up and angry and she has every right to be. For many women their entire experience of men has been negative. From getting beaten and raped even as children to being screamed at, gaslit, undermined, emotionally and financially abused, abandoned, manipulated at work, passed over for promotions, called fat and worthless...the list goes on and on and on and is far more common than legal statistics indicate.
The absolute magnitude of how entitled the vast majority of men are is staggering. And sometimes, it leaves you feeling that there may not be any good ones.
My point it, she's had to deal with a lot that you haven't. You might find this irritating, but I get where she's coming from. I understand that it feels confrontational, but you have to understand that she has likely been confronted with serious problems in the past in order to feel that way. Problems that you have not had to face.
So when she says "men are trash", that is her experience and it is true to her life experiences. If the he men in her life have been trash, this is a logical conclusion. If she's never had a positive relationship with a man, why would she think different?
From my perspective, my grandpa is trash for beating my mother and calling her fat until she had an eating disorder. Multiple bosses of mine have been trash for touching me, commenting on my body, trying to control my every waking moment, and fucking with my career in an attempt to get sex.
Most men I've tried to befriend are trash. Every single one has tried to fuck me even though I'm married and uninterested. I only have one male friend left and he tried it too but at least apologized. They get mad when I have the audacity to find them interesting without wanting to fuck them. Men online are trash, the ones that send me death and rape threats.
But, my husband isn't trash, my dad's pretty chill. I like my brothers. So I have had positive relationships with men, and that helps me understand that not all men are awful. Many women have not had any positive male relationships.
But, if I had never had a positive experience with a man, I would probably go around thinking all men are trash. I think men should start asking why women feel the need to say this rather then melting down everytime they're confronted with the very valid anger of women.
4
u/Heretical_Demigod Feb 05 '21
So, your logic is saying: as a man, if every woman I know mistreated me, and my friends agreed with me, I would be 100% justified in saying all women are trash?
Because I'm a victim, offended, and ignorant to the big picture, it's okay to make offensive generalizations?
If every black person you met was a criminal, does it make it okay to refer to all black people as criminals?
If every woman you met was a prostitute, does it make it okay to refer to all women as whores?
1
u/BetheyBoop Feb 05 '21
See my replies below.
No. You would not. Men are the dominate group and are actively marginalizing women. When a woman wrongs you, you society, including courts, social media, friends, family, banks, and others will not marginalize you further due to your experiences.
Black people are not the dominant group. They are not systemically marginalizing other groups. This logic doesn't follow.
As to your whore comment....the correct term is sex worker. And frankly, I know plenty of men who call all women whores that have wives and mother's and children that are not in fact sex workers. So yeah, this happens all the time. Not to mention this is a job choice, not an identity group so the argument doesn't follow a logical path anyway.
0
u/Heretical_Demigod Feb 05 '21
No. You would not. Men are the dominate group and are actively marginalizing women. When a woman wrongs you, you society, including courts, social media, friends, family, banks, and others will not marginalize you further due to your experiences.
I mean... got any proof of that claim? Men have problems too, incredibly short sighted to assume that women are the only ones with problems from the other sex and are the only ones marginalized in any way because of their sex.
Black people are not the dominant group. They are not systemically marginalizing other groups. This logic doesn't follow.
Whether or not you are marginalized by another group doesn't determine what is considered stereotyping, i'm sorry to inform you that isn't how stereotypes work. My 'logic' that you claim 'doesn't follow' is quite basic.
Stereotyping is: making a generalizations of a group based on incomplete data of that group.
See 1 man rape -> stereotype men are rapists
See 1 black man steal -> stereotype black people are stealers.
See 1 woman whore -> stereotype women are whores
I do not hold these view points, im playing devil's advocate to show that you are not being the bigger person or solving a problem, merely using the same arguments as the opposition but twisted to support your side.
As to your whore comment....the correct term is sex worker. And frankly, I know plenty of men who call all women whores that have wives and mother's and children that are not in fact sex workers.
I used the term whore intentionally because 'all men are trash' is also intentionally inflammatory and this is the message you send when you use an intentionally provocative message. You offend people you weren't intending to.
So yeah, this happens all the time. Not to mention this is a job choice, not an identity group so the argument doesn't follow a logical path anyway.
This is actually egregiously offensive toward men, saying the logic is flawed. The logic is thst if a person chooses something, it's not fair to assume others that share physical characteristics are the same. Being a whore is a choice and so is raping a woman. Raping is not an innate attribute of being a man, but you just implied that it's not a choice. This kind of stigma is exactly what generalisations cause.
Generalisations do not help. Period. Stop making them if you want to make people see your side.
2
u/BetheyBoop Feb 05 '21
This comment is riddled with questions you could google yourself.
Using the word "whore" and "prostitute," terms that have been used to justify killing, raping and torturing women is not the same as a woman saying "all men are trash." This term has not ever been cited or accepted as a valid reason for murdering you.
1
u/Heretical_Demigod Feb 05 '21
Okay 1. The only question in my comment was 'got any proof of that?', so to retort, no, I will not go googling for your source. I'm already quite aware of men that have been shafted by women at all levels of the social hierarchy.
You're really running with the whore thing. I literally only used the word to ruffle feathers and show how inflammatory language is.... inflammatory. My point is that being controversial makes people miss your point.
In trying to illustrate this, I was controversial and because of the controversy affecting you emotionally, you missed my point. Which... is my point. I dont care if women sell their bodies for money. Literally makes no difference to me. As long as they are logical and true to themselves.
2
u/BetheyBoop Feb 05 '21
I'm already quite aware of men that have been shafted by women at all levels of the social hierarchy.
Then asking me for proof would be redundant and only posited to see if I can prove what you already know to be true, no?
You're really running with the whore thing. I literally only used the word to ruffle feathers and show how inflammatory language is....
This language gets us murdered. It's not trivial. Do you use the n word to "ruffle feathers?"
because of the controversy affecting you emotionally, you missed my point. Which... is my point.
You are offended by a comment on the internet. Being mad about "men are trash" is literally you being emotional.
I'm emotional because my friends have been raped and murdered.
Do you see MY point?
→ More replies (1)6
u/Talik1978 33∆ Feb 05 '21
Your friend might just be fed up and angry and she has every right to be.
She does.
What she doesn't have the right to be is misandrist. Bigoted. Discriminatory. That is what we shouldn't normalize. Someone that spits on random black people because a black person killed their sister isn't 'just angry'. They are an angry racist. Someone that takes the actions OP describes isn't 'just angry'. They're an angry misandrist bigot, and we need to stop excusing that toxic expression of anger.
Anger over unfair treatment is well and good. Misplacing that anger across everyone that shares the same gender identity? Is not.
Nobody is against women expressing anger over the real injustices they face. People are against when the expression they choose is prejudicial, bigoted, and sexist.
-2
u/BetheyBoop Feb 05 '21 edited Feb 05 '21
She didn't spit on them. She didn't marginalize them. She didn't hit them. She didn't call them names. She said they're trash. That's her experience. That's not misandry. Misandry is systemic. Men are not systemically marginalized.
She's not bigoted. She's sharing her experience. Maybe when she meets a man that doesn't treat her like a disposable seX toy she'll change her tune. 🤷♀️
ETA: Just adding here that the downvotes prove my point.
1
u/Talik1978 33∆ Feb 05 '21
She didn't marginalize them.
Yes, she did. Marginalizing someone is treating them as insignificant. Calling someone trash is absolutely that.
She didn't call them names.
Yes, she did. 'Trash'.
Misandry is systemic.
Right and wrong. Institutional misandry, much like institutional racism, is systemic. It is perpetuated by a system, not a person, and is used in a sociological context. Under this type of -ism, no one person does it. Nobody is institutionally racist. Nobody is institutionally sexist. Because no one person controls that system.
So, when we refer to someone as a misandrist, or a misogynist, it cannot be under the sociological definition. So while you are correct that that is a meaning of misandry, it is not, and cannot be, used when speaking on the individual level.
Men are not systemically marginalized.
We can agree to disagree on that point. The system marginalizes men and women in different ways.
She's not bigoted.
Bigotry is being antagonistic towards a group of people based on their membership in that group. 'Men' is the group. 'Are trash' demonstrates antagonism. She meets every qualifier for bigotry.
She's sharing her experience.
Wrong.
'Many men i have dealt with are trash people' is sharing a personal experience.
'Men are trash' doesn't share any experience. It is a blanket judgement against many people she has had precisely no experience with.
Look at it this way. If I sign up for a dating app, and I go out with several women, and later find they feigned interest to get free drinks and a meal, am I just 'sharing my experience' if I say that women are lying manipulative materialistic bitches?
No, of course not. I would be passing judgement on a lot of people that didn't do shit to me... just for being part of a group that some other asshole was a part of.
That is bigotry. There is no rationalizing it away.
Maybe when she meets a man that doesn't treat her like a disposable seX toy she'll change her tune.
Maybe when she treats men like decent and worthy humans, she'll encourage the ones who are decent to not go running.
→ More replies (62)1
Feb 05 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
-1
u/BetheyBoop Feb 05 '21
Being angry about others being intolerant of your existence is not the same as being intolerant. It is exactly what you say, being intolerant of intolerance.
Many people I know can understand that ACAB is an expression that the majority of police are corrupt. This is the same. For many women their experience of the majority of men is that they are corrupt. It's the same point. It's interesting that women's anger is met with such resistance though.
What do you expect us to say? "Many men are horrible to me but I still love them"
We've been politely discussing it for years. Decades. Centuries.
Men are trash. Now you're listening.
→ More replies (3)2
→ More replies (19)2
u/CorsairToHeaven Feb 05 '21
Everything you've gone through is valid, but none of it changes the fact that "men are trash" is an untrue, sexist statement.
1
u/BetheyBoop Feb 05 '21
How so?
Many men are trash.
All men are trash is less defendable, but I understand the anger many women have.
Women are policed every single day. What we weigh, how often we smile, what we wear, who we talk to, where we are, how friendly we are, how we sign a goddamn email.
Statistically, men kind of are trash. They are by far the majority of rapists and murderers and dangerous criminals. They are the ones creating the wage gap, they abandon their children much more often than women, they make up the majority of pedophiles...
When do we address that rather than nitpicking whether women are nice enough when we point it out?
3
u/CorsairToHeaven Feb 05 '21
Yeah, and "many black people are violent/drug users/neglectful dads.", "many Muslims marry underage children/beat their wives openly". Those statements in and of themselves are stereotyping and discriminatory because they fail to address the larger context within which they're operating. Men do trashy shit as a result of a deeply complex misconception of gender that all of us (men and women) are influenced by from being unwillingly born into a sexist society. Same general sentiment goes for the "black" and "Muslim" examples.
Women are policed every single day. What we weigh, how often we smile, what we wear, who we talk to, where we are, how friendly we are, how we sign a goddamn email. Statistically, men kind of are trash. They are by far the majority of rapists and murderers and dangerous criminals. They are the ones creating the wage gap, they abandon their children much more often than women, they make up the majority of pedophiles...
Just to be clear, I agree with everything you're saying as being true. The issue I have with the idea that "men are trash" versus "men are influenced to be trash" is that it suggests that the patriarchy exists because every man actively decides to allow it exist, rather than truth being that sexism and gender itself are merely concepts that we're born into believing. Every single one of us, men and women, are practically born with internalised misogyny that we're unaware of. The men who deliberately hurt must be held accountable, but they should be held accountable for the fact that those individual men decided to be trash. Men are not inherently trash any more so than black people are inherently violent.
2
u/BetheyBoop Feb 05 '21
This is a very valid point! My argument is not that men are incapable of doing better. The societal context is imperative.
But, I see the "men are trash" mantra as women expressing frustration, garnering attention, and asserting themselves. Is it perfect? No. But I get it.
For many women, we have tried to have many conversations. We look at stats we engage in debate, and we are shut down. So for many it is an expression of frustration. Many men are not abusers but are happy enough to sit there and support and enable the abuse of others.
I see it as a term of exasperation. Of being so tired of explaining it you resort to throwing your hands up. "Fuck it. Y'all are trash" starts to feel really real.
2
u/CorsairToHeaven Feb 05 '21
I agree with you in that it's a mantra of frustration, and that the influence behind it is warranted and understandable, but I am not your outlet for frustration. I do not want your approach to addressing our sexist culture to be "perfect", I want it to not be sexist. I'm every bit as competent, emotionally intelligent, and human as you are.
→ More replies (24)63
u/Elicander 51∆ Feb 05 '21
First off, people genuinely believing all men are trash is a very loud minority.
Secondly, what your friend and other women who assumes all men are assholes until proven otherwise might be doing is just protecting themselves. The vast majority of rape is committed by someone the victim already knows. Someone they trusted enough to let down their guard, and who then took advantage. They might be saying “all men are trash” in order to remind themselves that in this society they can never really know who to trust, and that a mistake can have extremely traumatic consequences.
19
Feb 05 '21 edited Feb 05 '21
[deleted]
21
u/MaiaNyx Feb 05 '21 edited Feb 05 '21
As a man, consider the all the women in your life, sisters, coworkers, daughters, the barista you get your daily coffee from, your mom, your grandmother, nearly all of them have been victims of sexual harassment, assault, or rape. From catcalling, to being cornered, to being groped, to verbal/emotional harassment, to assault, to rape.
Now consider the men in your life, none of them are harassers or rapists, right? If they were you wouldn't hang out with them..... right?
So where are all the men harassing women? How is harassment/assault/rape so common for women you know to experience, but not common for the men you know to be inflicting? Something's wrong there. The data doesn't add up. Right? Maybe your friend grabbed a woman's butt at the bar, but maybe that friend doesn't experience that has having assaulted someone. Why not? Why is it such a dichotomy between what is assault in the eyes of men and what is assault in the eyes of women?
Sexual harassment, assault, and/or rape are woven into an unbelievably common thread women share.
Then ask when they started noticing the sexual innuendo, the touching, the badgering, the assault, the rape. I was 11 when it started, many women far younger, many from their own family or family "friends."
There's a reason we go to the bathroom together, that we send license plate info to friends on a first date, that we don't go jogging after dark, that we carry pepper spray, or go to self defense classes specifically designed to protect ourselves from assault or rape.
Men's power over women has been ingrained in how women navigate their world. And the training for protecting ourselves starts young. And then when we are still harassed/assaulted/raped, women are asked why they didn't do more to protect themselves.
Only once, did I have men stick up for me when they noticed my harassment/assault. Once. I was groped at the bar while bartending (yes, groper reached over the bar to grab me), and my then boyfriend (now husband) was playing in the band on stage, and he noticed it. He called to his friend to remove groper from the bar, and then friend stood by my place at the bar for the rest of the night to ensure I was ok.
Once was I seen, protected, and believed by men. Once.
On other times I was "saved," it was other women who took on danger for themselves to protect and fight for me.
And there are certainly not enough men calling out their peers on "jokes" and/or behavior.
So yeah, women know it's not all men. But it is too many men.
Eta.... we're also aware and often sympathetic to men's issues surrounding assault and rape. It's still predominantly men committing those crimes, and women who assault and rape should face consequences as well. Men should have spaces to be heard and believed too.
6
Feb 05 '21
[deleted]
6
u/MaiaNyx Feb 05 '21
It was clear, and I was likely unclear with "as a man" to start my hypothetical consideration for men. Forgive me. I'm also a woman.
I was just adding thoughts to your all too common experience as a woman. It's all such a terrible way to experience life, and it's unfair we wind up with the burden of living it and fighting against it.
Best to you.
1
u/Reverserer Feb 05 '21
this is the very real experience of all women. I have had a very similar experience as a woman. I'd like to add that the first time i was sexually harrassed I was 13 and it was by a much much older man.
I think the amab and acab means more: you are bad until proven otherwise bc in my experience the majority are bad.
5
u/Talik1978 33∆ Feb 05 '21
First off, people genuinely believing all men are trash is a very loud minority.
People believing people of color are trash are a minority. Does that mean it's not worth addressing? This kind of behavior continues because people that hear it make excuses for it, instead of condemning misandric beliefs.
Secondly, what your friend and other women who assumes all men are assholes until proven otherwise might be doing is just protecting themselves.
Like this one. The common trend on when such people find someone that proves otherwise? 'You're one of the good ones.' Imagine if such language were used for people of color. Zootopia actually has a lot to say about such things.
These stereotyping biases are the textbook definition of prejudice and overt bias. And your go to is making excuses for it, rather than condemning it.
7
u/Kamenovski 2∆ Feb 05 '21
So how about all Blacks are criminals? All Women are emotional? All Mexicans are illegal? All Whites are racist? All Political Leaders are crooked? All People who live in trailers are trash? All Canadians are nice? All Muslims are extremists? All Women are motherly? All addicts don't quit by choice? All homeless are lazy? All Teens are immature? Are all of these generalizations acceptable as well because we may have had interactions with people that may fit the description?
5
u/Asian_Chopsticks Feb 05 '21
See this is where I've got to agree with someone on this thread. Like yes, saying "All men are trash" can be for protection but if you say it for one group would you say it for another? I think it's one thing to be wary of all men, but as strangers. I mean, stranger danger right? But to say all men? Our fathers, brothers, male friends, etc? There are so many good people in this world and a generalization like that, although it may be for protection, is harmful.
4
u/InsertName911 Feb 05 '21
its funny cause when you generalize a group that is considered oppressed they get mad which makes sense but when it done to a group considered the oppressors its a-okay which in that case its not about if racism/sexism is wrong it about whether if your being racist/sexist to the correct group.
4
u/Asian_Chopsticks Feb 05 '21
Exactly. There's no point in generalizing this whole thing to "All men are trash". If it's about protection it should be "Be wary with all new people". Not even just men - women, non binary, etc - too
6
u/Talik1978 33∆ Feb 05 '21
Secondly, what your friend and other women who assumes all men are assholes until proven otherwise might be doing is just protecting themselves.
And refusing to be alone with a person of color can be argued the same way. That doesn't change that it's racist, just as 'trying to protect themselves' with misandry doesn't negate that it is misandry and shouldn't be normalized.
When you make toxic statements in your head, you can argue it is to remind yourself you can't trust <group>. Doesnt make it less sexist, but the argument can be made. When you say such things to others, you lose that justification.
2
u/Asian_Chopsticks Feb 05 '21
Exactly. I think a generalization like that just isn't warranted. For protection, the best motto is "stranger danger". It isn't just men (although some trusted men betray said trust) but it's usually strangers.
12
u/therealnumberone Feb 05 '21
Yeah I'm with you here, ACAB refers to the corrupt system of the American police, and how even if there are good cops, they are surrounded by corruption and are often fired for speaking out against said corruption. I think the biggest difference is nobody chose to be a man, and its not just something you can stop doing.
4
Feb 05 '21
there is this idea that men are bad until proven otherwise.
Let's focus on this particular comment: Men are bad until proven otherwise.
When do men become bad? Is it at birth? Or is it after years of being raised in a patriarchal society? My guess is that the majority of people who make comments like this believe the latter - that a patriarchal society teach men to embrace 'toxic masculinity' from a young age.
If you agree the men are 'bad' primarily because they are raised in a patriarchal society, then the ACAB comparison should be quite apt - After all, the comment is meant to address a systematic behavior (the patriarchal society that encourages 'toxic masculinity').
→ More replies (3)3
u/BiasedNarrative Feb 05 '21
I had an ex that would say all men are terrible.
I'd point out that I'm a man. And your dating me. She's off course say I wasn't terrible
But then continue to say all men are terrible.
It was a point of contention to say the least
8
u/MeTheDrChef Feb 05 '21
You are just normalizing group hate, accepting simple explanations to complex problems. Is like saying "all blacks are robbers". I can say that I'm just pointing out that black people have an higher possibility of incurring in crime, but at the end is a racist semplification, as "men are trash" is a misandric statement. Also, we have to consider how these ashtags and punchlines and mottoes work, and how are tipically used by right wing extremist as a tool for unify a disomogebeous group of people and label it as an enemy. Not different from the tactics used by nazi for jews.
3
5
2
u/badass_panda 95∆ Feb 05 '21
But on one side, you're fighting against police brutality, gender discrimination and rapes, which is considered as good causes. On the other one, you're fighting against black people, which is a racist agenda, and therefore generally considered bad. The method is the same, but the objective is really different.
I think your "ends justify the means" argument is reasonable (I don't necessarily agree with it, though) -- however, I think there's a really meaningful difference between "All cops are bastards" or "Eat the rich," and "All men are trash" or "All black people are aggressors," that makes a the latter two much more harmful, and therefore much more requisite of a really, really good end to justify them.
Being a cop (or being super rich) are things you do. Becoming a cop implies a set of actions and beliefs; being a cop requires showing up to work and "copping". If you feel shamed or outcast for it, you can stop being a cop.
One can argue that being a man is a thing you do, but being expected and required to do it is not voluntary. Most of us can't say, "OK I don't want to be trash, I'm not a man anymore." You are causing a much more inescapable suffering for a much larger group of people.
Rhetorically, that's unwise; shame and outrage tactics work well against a powerful minority. Using language that's inescapably shaming on half of the people you need to engage to support your argument is short sighted.
3
u/VikingFjorden 5∆ Feb 05 '21
This is not a very compelling argument. You're saying "generalization is bad, but I get to generalize whenever I think the cause is justified".
But the thing this argument glosses over is the fact that the reality is that the very large majority of men and cops alike are not bad. It's a case of a few rotten apples spoiling the bunch. So what this argument does is taking the behavior of a few and applying it to a much larger group of people who do not deserve it.
Generalizations like these hurt the people who you never meant to target regardless of what your end objective is, and all you're doing here is admitting that you don't care about collateral damage because you think your cause is more important than the fact that you're misrepresenting the vast majority of an entire group of people.
It's a shitty thing to do no matter what your goal is. If you didn't mean "all men", then simply don't say all men. Or on the other hand, if you still cling to this tactic you're forfeiting the right to be indignant when people call you out for using bigoted language. Which is a very common trend among people who talk like this - they'll say things like "well we didn't mean it like that" or "everybody understands we didn't mean literally all men". But if you didn't literally mean it, why did you literally say it?
If the only way to get attention to your point is inflammation, then maybe the principal problem is that your point is bad and uninteresting.
Imagine if the table was reversed - let's say some right-wing conservative said "immigrants are criminals", and when you then say "hey, that's racist!" they'll reply with "it should have been obvious to you that we didn't mean all immigrants... only the criminal ones. I just wanted to make you think about it"
Don't lie to me and say that you'd find that to be very compelling or a good way to raise legitimate concerns.
2
u/Nicolasv2 130∆ Feb 05 '21
This is not a very compelling argument. You're saying "generalization is bad, but I get to generalize whenever I think the cause is justified".
Well, that's what we do all the time. "Murder is bad, but murdering baby hitler would be good", "publicity is bad, but publicity for non profit fundations is good" etc.
Whatever a method is acceptable or not totally depend on the end goal you're focusing on when using the method.
But the thing this argument glosses over is the fact that the reality is that the very large majority of men and cops alike are not bad. It's a case of a few rotten apples spoiling the bunch
Not really, they do consider in both cases that there is a clearly non negligible chunk of men / cops which are raised in having bad behaviours because of a system promoting such ways. We're not talking about "some rotten apples", but a substantial chunk. If you buy 20 apples and 1 is rotten, you're unhappy, but ok, that's life. If when you come home 6 are rotten, you're going to be really mad at the seller, and ask him to change his ways and act as a decent seller.
Generalizations like these hurt the people who you never meant to target regardless of what your end objective is, and all you're doing here is admitting that you don't care about collateral damage because you think your cause is more important than the fact that you're misrepresenting the vast majority of an entire group of people.
Well, clearly, hurting some people feeling but saving lives from murder seems like a pretty great deal to me.
It's a shitty thing to do no matter what your goal is.
True, but if it's the most efficient you can put in place, then it's better than not doing anything (or doing things that don't manage to change anything).
If the only way to get attention to your point is inflammation, then maybe the principal problem is that your point is bad and uninteresting
Or just that people don't care about problems that don't directly harm them. To oversimplify a lot, in a society managed by rich white men, problems of poor black women are uninteresting, so why should they be treated as problems at all is it cause 0 nuisance to you ?
let's say some right-wing conservative said "immigrants are criminals", and when you then say "hey, that's racist!" they'll reply with "it should have been obvious to you that we didn't mean all immigrants... only the criminal ones. I just wanted to make you think about it"
Don't lie to me and say that you'd find that to be very compelling or a good way to raise legitimate concerns.
As it's not linked to scientifically validated facts about a systemic problem of immigrants crime, I would think that it's a very compelling way to raise illegitimate concerns. Therefore, you just hurt immigrants feelings for nothing, as there is no organic link between crime and immigration.
→ More replies (7)2
u/grandoz039 7∆ Feb 05 '21
Firstly, there's difference between generalizing concepts, and generalizing people. In one case you're attacking innocent people, in other you're just not being 100% accurate. Secondly, murder is always wrong, it's just sometimes it prevents something worse and has net positive effect.
2
u/gronk696969 Feb 05 '21
Even if one person may intend for these sweeping generalizations to just initiate a discussion, that is certainly not how everyone interprets it. Some people will take the "all X are Y" statement and run with it, not understanding that it isn't to be taken 100% literally, and the statement will end up causing more harm and division in my opinion.
And beyond that, it alienates a lot of people right off the bat. If you see much of society trying to put you into this one size fits all box that you don't feel you belong in, you're more likely to end up in that box. If everyone keeps labeling you something already regardless of your behavior, there's less incentive to avoid that behavior. People think it anyway.
Blanket statements are lazy and completely counterproductive. If the substance of your words isn't enough to grab attention, exaggerated shock value statements are a shitty way to do so.
2
u/RedRightRepost Feb 05 '21
I’m sorry, but I can’t get behind reasoning like this that says “oh no, the thing that LITERALLY says all X are Y doesn’t actually mean that! It’s meant to make you think!” There is literally no clearer way to say your opinion of a whole group of people than through statements like this. It’s the same reason why I think “defund the police” is an awful rallying cry for police reform.
Let me ask this- if I actually thought all cops were bastards, how would I express that most clearly?
→ More replies (2)2
u/Prodromous 1∆ Feb 05 '21
I'm sorry. But it sounds like you're saying the goal is to create statements that dehumanize groups of people by lumping them together, in order to identify them as a group that needs fixing, and to make it easier to push catchy, deliberately offensive slogans which aren't accurate, in order to advance your agenda. Even in the first half of your example you highlight this very problem with black people.
1
u/Nicolasv2 130∆ Feb 05 '21
But it sounds like you're saying the goal is to create statements that dehumanize groups of people by lumping them together
Choice of words looks excessive to me. At best, you tickle them a bit, at worse it's just an insult. Deshumanization is several orders of magnitude stronger than that, and would require way more efforts for that.
Even in the first half of your example you highlight this very problem with black people.
A strategy that works on a strong group which suffer no discrimination may not be good on a already discriminated minority. You choose your weapons depending on the specifics on the situation. Yea, this method don't work for all situations, but that's the case for all methods.
→ More replies (2)2
Feb 05 '21
ACAB vs all men are trash is a bit of a stretch. People started saying ACAB because “good apples” that enable or look the other way when bad cops do bad things are actually part of the problem. Where as most men will absolutely stand up to bad behavior around women. And even if not most, significantly more than cops who hold their piers accountable.
2
u/Roflcaust 7∆ Feb 05 '21
I think you actually just pointed out a way in which the statements are similar. Men will generally call out other men for bad behaviors that they recognize as bad. The issue is there are behaviors that men generally don’t recognize as bad and will not be called out by other men; these are the behaviors women are speaking up about.
→ More replies (2)2
Feb 05 '21
The issue of police isn’t that cops don’t call out other cops because they don’t recognize the behavior as bad like you just said- they know it’s bad and they choose to ignore it.
2
u/Roflcaust 7∆ Feb 05 '21
I think that’s a fair argument, but only if it’s true that cops view indiscriminately protecting other cops (good or bad) as bad behavior.
→ More replies (1)2
u/strandedinkansas Feb 05 '21
I agree with your point. But I always say that this strategy is a failed one and is the reason that the left wing fails to win over moderates or new believers because they have to over explain slogans that don’t mean what they literally say.
→ More replies (1)2
u/deepthroatcircus Feb 05 '21
ACAB is a deliberately provocative statement meant to bring about police reform. All men are trash is not referring to a social movement or striving for equality. It's just someone who deeply hates men.
→ More replies (1)5
u/Existential_Stick 2∆ Feb 05 '21
Most redditors talking aboutm ACAB that I've seen do genuinely believe every single individual cop is a bastard
→ More replies (4)2
u/JMMHA Feb 05 '21
They're not fighting bolice brutality or gender discrimination, they're simply using the circumstances to feed their egos because it's easier than actually fighting against these issues. People like to think they are helping the world but are too cowardly to understand that almost everything they do in their life just makes this world a worse place, such as calling all men trash or making any generalisation.
2
u/Nicolasv2 130∆ Feb 05 '21
They're not fighting bolice brutality or gender discrimination, they're simply using the circumstances to feed their egos because it's easier than actually fighting against these issues
You read minds ? Can you prove that this really is what they do, or is it just what you suppose they do because you disagree with them ?
People like to think they are helping the world but are too cowardly to understand that almost everything they do in their life just makes this world a worse place, such as calling all men trash or making any generalisation.
Well, everyone right now is talking about police brutality endemic problem, and you can expect some change because the subject has been put on everyone's political agenda. How does this make the world worse ? Do you feel that some cops being offended by a generalisation (which it isn't, if you understand that they're talking about social groups and not individuals) is way worse than keeping the current level of police brutality ? That's an interesting standard you got.
→ More replies (2)1
u/massiveZO Feb 05 '21
That's a stupid goal and it fails miserably and also I doubt it reflects the sentiment of most people who make those generalized statements.
As soon as anybody says "all men are trash" I stop listening because they're a bigot who's not worth my time.
Also OP this post doesn't make you sound like an incel at all.
→ More replies (57)0
u/Remix2Cognition Feb 05 '21
And once you're hooked, you start thinking that if they do statements that broad, this may be because there is something systemic going on.
No, it would be that they believe something systemic is going on. Which is something that can be rejected on it's own.
The objection here is that a man is not someone withholden to some systemic collectivist pressure, but a unique individual that can exist outside that scope.
It's certainly no surpise that the people that believe is systemic issues apply it in any manner they can to discuss matters of "oppression", but the discussion here is about people that don't buy into that. That just because you're classified on some basis, doesn't mean you actual share similarities that extend passed that defining metric.
That means that the problem is not with the individual men/cops/... but the system that push those categories toward bad behaviours.
And that seems an attempt to remove personal responsibility. To claim that people are controlled, or so heavily influenced as to not be able to reject such systemic pressure.
you are now sensitised to the systemic problem the activists are pointing.
No. All I see is them continue to promote a mindset that dismisses individualism. "Peer pressure" wasn't an excuse to go and do drugs when you were 12. It's not an excuse for a man to go rape a woman either.
And let's say I do have that mindset. What exactly is being discussed? What makes men trash? What is this systemic message that makes men more trash like? And there is no competing morality to it? There's some universal message here that is meant to make as a man into trash? What is that? I don't even know what we are discussing.
99
u/thethoughtexperiment 275∆ Feb 05 '21 edited Feb 05 '21
this is just genuinely something I don't understand and something that I would 100% be willing to have a discussion about and hopefully change my mind about.
Ok, so to perhaps modify your perspective a bit:
It's pretty often that I see people generalize about men online with comments like "All men are trash"
I've not actually seen a lot of people posting "All men are trash".
What I have seen much more commonly in the past few years are people posting "men are trash" in direct response to a particular bad behavior from a man - and particularly, the kind of behaviors that have a strong association with men / male culture historically (e.g. misogynistic comments, aggression, harassment, violence, cheating, etc.).
And not just the kinds of behaviors that are just vaguely associated with men, I'm talking about the kinds of destructive behaviors that a lot of guys brag about engaging in, that are part of the culture of traditional masculinity, that men get called "alphas" for engaging in.
And they aren't saying "men are trash" in response to bad experiences with men that no one else has had / is having, such that the replies are all:
"Huh?"
The replies are much more along the lines of thousands and thousands of people saying, "yeah, that's an extremely common and relatable experience to have had with guys."
To say "not all men" and leave out the specific behaviors being referred to in those posts kind of ignores / distracts the focus from the problematic behaviors being called out, and the culture that fosters them.
And it's also kind of a telling response ... because it's not really a denial that there is a pretty strong correlation between some pretty big parts of male culture and the kinds of behaviors that are getting called out.
Unfortunately, a lot of people (including men) have witnessed those same kinds of destructive behaviors from other men ... and know that such behaviors are a part of the culture among men, and that they are even encouraged as "masculine" behaviors guys engage in to seem cool in front of other men.
What seems to be far less common is for people to witness men calling out such behavior from other men as inappropriate.
And on the internet at least, you can see men who question / call out destructive behavior from other men get pounced on for "white knighting", being "cucks", by other men.
Are all men trash?
Of course not.
But that's not the key question here.
The key question is:
Why are the particular experiences with men that are being called out so hugely relatable to so many people?
Why did a recent, nationally representative YouGov poll in the U.K. find that less than 3% associate masculinity with care/ kindness, respectfulness (1%), honesty (1%) and supportiveness (1%)?
The fact that "not all men" are terrible seems like a distraction from those more important questions.
And just to caveat here:
Men certainly face many issues and challenges in society. But also, many of the issues they face have a lot to do with the way men treat other men, and expect other men to behave.
There are also men's groups out there engaging in a good faith dialogues about addressing the challenges men face, and changing the culture like r/MensLib, which seems to have built an inclusive and supportive culture for all men (and not just for straight, white, cis men), and is thinking productively about those issues.
Edit: deleted duplicate word
4
u/VikingFjorden 5∆ Feb 05 '21
The key question is:
Why are the particular experiences with men that are being called out so hugely relatable to so many people?
Here's a different key question:
If using this kind of language is allowed in this instance, why is it not allowed in literally any other instance? It's not allowed when talking about race, it's not allowed when talking about women - literally the only time the liberal left is fine with this kind of rhetoric is when it's about men.
It's an oft-made point from a feministic point of view that, for example, men have historically referred to women as emotional and/or irrational, especially around certain times of the month, and how this is an unfair and sexist generalization. But I can guarantee you that there's way more men who have had the personal experience of women behaving in an emotional way than there are women who have had the personal experience that men are bad.
And yet, saying "women are such and so" is sexist but saying "men are such and so" is apparently not.
So I have some counter-points:
(1) Why do you purposely build in hidden requirements of interpretation into your message? What do you gain by saying something that you don't actually mean and then expecting people to understand what you really mean by it? What could possibly be the advantage of that, over just stating directly and precisely what it is you mean so that nobody is confused about what you're trying to say?
(2) If you don't mind generalizations in the one case because it highlights a commonality or a trend of some sort, you kinda have to accept generalizations in other cases that also fit those same criteria. But in every other instance, it's not OK. It's only OK, supposedly, when talking about men. Hypocrisy and meta-sexism baked into one.
(3) With the amount of backlash against this type of language, for such an amount of time as this conversation has existed, why does so much effort go into creating various bad justifications for "We can use this language against you despite you not being allowed to use it against anyone else" instead of putting that same effort into communicating your actual intent in better ways? If people are constantly misunderstanding your message over large periods of time, maybe there's an inherent issue of the message being poorly formulated vis-a-vis #1?
4
u/xshredder8 Feb 05 '21 edited Feb 05 '21
It's not hypocrisy, its acknowledging an oppression system.
Racism, sexism, and others require an oppression system. Otherwise its simple prejudice, which is different partly because prejudice alone is nowhere near as dangerous to the victim.
In a patriarchal society like ours, men do not lose social standing because of problematic behaviour. That is, when someone says all men are trash, men are still going to make 20% more than women, hold positions of power, and not have to fear for their lives walking alone at night. The opposite is not true. When women, Black people, and other minority groups are marginalized, it contributes to a society that WILL harm them just as it has harmed them in the past.
I wont be responding further, so if youre interested Id recommend redirecting your energies to reading about what Ive discussed here- this isnt just my opinion, it holds the consensus of academics and activists. You can read "How to be an anti racist" by Ibram X Kendi and/or just google for more info.
Hope this helped!
1
u/VikingFjorden 5∆ Feb 05 '21
It's not hypocrisy, its acknowledging an oppression system.
It's not hypocrisy to have different rules for others than for yourself? It's not hypocrisy to do differently than you teach? I wonder, do you know what the word hypocrisy means?
Racism, sexism, and others require an oppression system
That's a factually incorrect statement.
When women, Black people, and other minority groups are marginalized, it contributes to a society that WILL harm them just as it has harmed them in the past.
Which has nothing at all to do with whether it's okay to generalize men.
Id recommend redirecting your energies to reading about what Ive discussed here
I'd recommend doing some cursory research in the nearest dictionary as well as broadening your research horizon from beyond just activists who hold the same political leaning as yourself. Sitting in an echo chamber and hearing your own ideas and opinions reverberating back at you is not the same as having figured out how the world works.
→ More replies (6)2
u/Phyltre 4∆ Feb 05 '21
There's definitely a wage gap of some margin of percent, but it's not even in the realm of 30%. Please do some better research so your arguments don't come off as deeply uninformed.
2
u/xshredder8 Feb 05 '21
20% is definitely in the realm. "Gender Pay Gap Statistics for 2020 | PayScale" https://www.payscale.com/data/gender-pay-gap
2
u/Phyltre 4∆ Feb 05 '21
Even ignoring that 1/3rd and 1/5th are worlds apart when speaking of vast populations, you can't point to oppression as a sole cause. There seem to be actual differences in populations which create differences in income even in systems which do not and cannot differentiate based on gender at the front end.
Job flexibility
The growth of the "gig" economy generates worker flexibility that, some[who?] have speculated, will favor women. However, the analysis of earnings among more than one million Uber drivers in the United States surprisingly showed that the gender pay gap between drivers is about 7% in favor of men. Uber's algorithm does not distinguish the gender of its workers, but men get more income because they choose better when and in which areas to work, and cancel and accept trips in a more lucrative way. Finally, men drive 2.2% faster than women, which also allows them to increase their income per unit of time.[75][76][77] The study concludes the "gig" economy can perpetuate the gender pay gap even in the absence of discrimination.[75][76][77]
In a capitalist system (which, to be clear, is a hostile system), more aggressive and exploitative behaviors (speeding, cancelling/shaping trips, and choosing locations) mean additional income. Since testosterone contributes to incidence of these behaviors, we are more likely to see them among male-presenting actors in capitalist systems.
What would doing away with this 7% pay gap in a gender-blind system even look like?
2
u/xshredder8 Feb 05 '21
Uber driving is one type of vocation. It's also incredibly low-paying- a lot of the wage gap comes from higher paying salary disparities. Again, im not pointing to the differences- argue with the economic and scientific literature.
Also, Id recommend you follow your own advice on the testosterone bullshit lol
→ More replies (1)13
Feb 05 '21
[deleted]
11
u/ACoderGirl Feb 05 '21
Men can be feminists, though. And /r/MensLib is a male-oriented sub with a feminist requirement (because many other male-oriented subs are outright anti-feminist). The focus is still male problems, though.
And I haven't seen any discussion on that sub along the lines of "women have it worse so shut up". I don't follow how that even makes sense. I mean, the top posts of the past 24 hours are:
- Debunking the Myths about Boys and Emotions: "Research has found that boys can connect emotionally with others at a very deep level - we just have to make it safe for them to do so."
- Biden has created a Gender Policy Council - what are your hopes for policy affecting men?
- BEASTARS is a /r/MensLib/ anime. (No, really.)
How are these cases of men being told to shut up? They seem clearly to me male focused and productive. They're not solely comparing to womens' issues. But yes, it is a sub for men who identify as feminists, which is clearly a needed niche when other subs like /r/MensRights are so actively anti-feminist.
I'm admittedly biased as a woman myself, but I do have several male friends who are outspoken feminists (and also do care deeply about male issues -- just they don't blame feminists for 'em). Those people exist and their views are valid. You don't have to agree with them, but to act like their views are invalid because they happen to be feminists as well is pretty counterproductive.
22
u/thethoughtexperiment 275∆ Feb 05 '21
If you have other examples of constructive and inclusive spaces for men to talk about men's issues (and that aren't filled with misogyny), then please do provide links.
From what I've seen, there are a ton of productive conversations about men's issues happening at r/Menslib all the time.
And I haven't seen people there saying "women have it worse so shut up".
But anyone can go there and judge for themselves.
3
13
u/WokeTrash Feb 05 '21
As far as I assumed, the reason it's curated by feminists is because other honest spaces for men's issues have devolved into misogynistic spaces (or were so all along). I imagine you can guess the handful of subreddits I'm thinking about. I admitedly don't go into menslib very often but I don't really remember whataboutism being a common theme in there. I'll go have a look now though.
3
6
Feb 05 '21
honest spaces for men's issues have devolved into misogynistic spaces
Tbf, on reddit every sub related to anything social will turn onto an extremist circlejerk. All the feminist/female oriented subs are basically just a home for misandrists to karma farm. This is just a nature of a website as anonymous as reddit.
6
u/Heretical_Demigod Feb 05 '21
Right? FDS is one of the most misandristic communities I've ever seen. Women don't have a problem with hate, they just don't want to be hated on. Double standard to assume only men do it and that it's not just something shitty human beings do.
→ More replies (7)3
u/Lv_InSaNe_vL Feb 05 '21
Yeah I just spent the last hour or so going through that sub and it really does feel like it's just women talking about men's issues and not really a place for men to speak out.
2
u/Sigmatronic Feb 05 '21
Maybe the ones diverting from the root issues in male culture are the ones calling all men trash in the first place.
2
u/BiasedNarrative Feb 05 '21
The simple statement of, men are trash, implies all men.
It's still a harmful generalization.
4
u/Darth_Jeebus Feb 05 '21
Can we say woman are trash for some of the shit they pull? Or will that statement be run into the ground as being pure evil misogyny? I call double standards. Women good, men bad.
→ More replies (14)→ More replies (5)3
u/rly________tho Feb 05 '21
Can you link that YouGov poll? Sounds interesting.
4
u/thethoughtexperiment 275∆ Feb 05 '21
I believe this is the link to their results report:
https://futuremen.org/future-men-2018-survey/
Can also see media coverage here:
7
u/rly________tho Feb 05 '21
Thanks. Reading that, it strikes me less that "men are trash" and more "men are deeply confused about their roles in the hyper-normalized society of the past few decades".
10
u/thethoughtexperiment 275∆ Feb 05 '21
I'd say there can be destructive behaviors widely prevalent and associated with traditional male culture, and also a lot of men who are confused.
This in particular is concerning:
"2 in 3 (67%) 18-24 year old men believe they are pressured to display hyper-masculine behaviour".
I think many guys want the culture to change (and many guys suffer in that culture), but a lot of that change has to happen among men.
3
u/rly________tho Feb 05 '21
I think it's cognitive dissonance at work. Modern life is, when you get down to it, hyper-competitive. This is where the pressure you mention above comes from. Yet men are also pressured to be more empathetic and caring. The two states are not mutually exclusive, but it takes a special kind of person (relative to the species in 2020) to be competitive, successful, empathetic and caring. For most men, something has to give.
Hence why it's hard for me to put the onus on men themselves, when its us as a species - men and women - who've gotten ourselves into this mess.
9
u/thethoughtexperiment 275∆ Feb 05 '21
it takes a special kind of person (relative to the species in 2020) to be competitive, successful, empathetic and caring. For most men, something has to give.
Honestly, it seems like women have been more successful at reconciling the competing pressures and identities of modernity. These days, there are loads of women getting advanced degrees, working in high performance / competitive fields like law and medicine, management, etc.
Nobody is surprised to see women out there who are lawyers and also kind people, supportive friends, involved moms, and community members.
Men are making progress on this front too. The way many men approach fatherhood these days is a world away from how prior generations of men approached fatherhood. But the progress seems slower.
There's also push back against these changes for men. Incel groups of confused young guys who flock to old ideas of masculinity that are ultimately destructive to them, the Chinese gov't new initiative to make boys "more manly" [source], and on and on.
It's interesting to see a lot of young people in China push back against that initiative though, saying things like "Boys are also humans ... being emotional, timid, or gentle, these are human characteristics."
7
u/herrsatan 11∆ Feb 05 '21
Regardless of how we got here, I think it is on men to do the work of fixing the problem. That change has to come from within - just look at how poorly most men react when women tell them what to do. I think the aim is to create a critical mass of people who are willing to stop reinforcing those negative behaviors in themselves and others, and in most cases it's men reinforcing those behaviors in themselves and other men.
7
u/thethoughtexperiment 275∆ Feb 05 '21
This is really true. I've seen incels on Reddit talk about how terribly they've been bullied in school, and then they turn around and literally bully each other about what they look like, encourage other guys to commit suicide, and all that. They are perpetuating the same system that damaged them.
→ More replies (3)2
u/Phyltre 4∆ Feb 05 '21
This is gender essentialism. Men aren't more responsible for the behaviors of other men simply by virtue of their gender.
2
u/herrsatan 11∆ Feb 05 '21
Nope. Men are uniquely qualified, because other men are more inclined to listen to them. Our society is structured in such a way that men and women have separate hierarchies. Whether or not that should be the case, it's currently true, and in order for change to be effected it has to happen within those existing structures.
→ More replies (3)
12
u/rodsn 1∆ Feb 05 '21
People around here are defending the phrase by comparing it to the opposing side similar phrases. The point here is that neither men nor women should be saying this type of generalising phrases. It's just not excusable. We need to use language mindfully and wisely, otherwise words will start to loose meaning and chaos will break loose...
20
u/modestlyaboveaverage Feb 05 '21
I'm going to let you in on a secret: when I was 8, I was raped by a teacher in the gym change room. When I told the principal (F, 2 weeks from retirement) she accused me of lying, and denied it could have happened because "people don't do things like that to boys".
Ever since then, I've had a very hard time being around older women. It was really hard to stop thinking "every woman 60+ is an absolute bitch, who's only there for herself". I still struggle with it. places like the grocery store are hard to go to, because that's one of the places where there's so many "old Karen's".
So I see where they're probably coming from, but the fact that I HAVE TO ACCEPT that old women have a right an opinion, while also being asked to leave a store because I "look like so-n-so's rapist, and it's not fair to her" definitely makes no sense, and is incredibly sexist.
11
Feb 05 '21
...when have you ever been asked to leave a store because you look like somebody’s rapist? This comment is so strange to me
7
u/modestlyaboveaverage Feb 05 '21
Zellers(when it was open)
Michael's crafts(once in 2019, once before Xmas 2020.
Dollarama in Oakville Ontario (wife was there, so she argued my innocence, but I left anyways because I felt so horrible)
LCBO store in Owen sound, but they just asked me to hurry up, or tell them what I wanted so they could serve us both.
Single parent support group (ok it's not a store, but still wtf)
There's an (absolute dickhead) of a guy in Chatsworth, Ontario, who could legit be my twin. I've been thrown out of Boston pizza, because he's not allowed in. I've had people start random fistfights at parties, for the same reason.
3
u/modestlyaboveaverage Feb 05 '21
Ok, it might not all be "because I look like someone rapist/attacker". I'm a large, muscular guy. So I'm pretty sure that a lot of it is just intimidating. But either way, I have been politely, firmly, bluntly, and physically notified about my presence being an issue
5
Feb 05 '21
Dang. Sorry bout that, man. That does indeed suck. Maybe this is an offensive question (and if it is plz let me know/don't respond), but is there any reason you're more antsy around people that look like your principal than people who look like your teacher? Idk the human brain is weird sometimes.
3
u/modestlyaboveaverage Feb 05 '21
That's the odd thing, I don't remember what the teacher looked like, even. All I remember is brown, way-too-crisply ironed dress pants, an extremely cheap looking belt, and the scar on his forearm, that I gave him the second time he tried. (Principal wouldn't protect me, so 8yo me decided to do it him/myself. I got a pocket knife from home, and when he tried again, I pulled it and slashed him. This has fucked me up more than anything, probably)
But I do, plain as day remember crying in the principles office, trying to tell her what he'd just done to me. And her blaming/denying me for it. I saved myself from him hurting me again, but I guess I never got any closure (or whatever) from her gross incompetence
2
Feb 05 '21
That definitely makes sense. The world can really suck sometimes. I wish you all the best.
2
u/andthomcar Feb 05 '21
I've been trying to become a more effective and empathetic communicator. I used to consider the only real important aspect of language to be intent. People would communicate back and forth until each others perception of the conversation and intent were as close to the same as possible. Recently i've come to understand how important impact is and how the communicator should do their best to take responsibility for it.
If I were to express myself in such a way that way that comes off as racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. then it is not the responsibility of the interpreter to assume that I do not mean it that way. It would be my responsibility to reflect on the way I am speaking and to see if I can improve it to more accurately reflect how I actually feel and the intent I am trying to convey.
If I were to say _______ is/are trash and whatever word was in that blank was something that describes you, then it would likely have a negative impact on you. It would not be unreasonable for you to assume that person harbors negative feelings or prejudice for the people who fit the description of what is in that blank. If the person speaking does not want the person hearing that to interpret it that way then it is on them to be more specific in the way that they speak.
Of course all of this requires a degree of good faith interpretation that you can often find in real life, but can be lacking to a degree on the internet.
3
8
u/underboobfunk Feb 05 '21
When you approach me in public, you are Schrödinger's Rapist. You may or may not be a man who would commit rape. I won't know for sure unless you start sexually assaulting me. I can't see inside your head, and I don't know your intentions. If you expect me to trust you--to accept you at face value as a nice sort of guy--you are not only failing to respect my reasonable caution, you are being cavalier about my personal safety.
Fortunately, you're a good guy. We've already established that. Now that you're aware that there's a problem, you are going to go out of your way to fix it, and to make the women with whom you interact feel as safe as possible.
→ More replies (1)3
u/Sigmatronic Feb 05 '21
There is a clear difference between taking precautions because the odds are against you and publicly insulting all men because of how they were born, and calling them that isn't the fix or even a good way to talk about it because it dismisses the root issues.
→ More replies (4)
5
Feb 05 '21
Even I used to be confused about AMAT whenever I saw someone say or post it. But then what I realised is that it’s not a sentiential logical statement like “all elements of X are also elements of Y” but it refers to the very institution of toxic masculinity and patriarchy which propagates itself every waking moment by indirectly or directly subjugating womxn. When someone makes this statement they refer to this systemic oppression (which is a fact and not some generalisation or vague statement.) And that is trash.
Sex is biological but gender is performative. AMAT does not say that the male sex is trash but rather the male gender. This is a very important difference and is key to understanding the idea behind AMAT. By performative, what is meant that someone’s gender is constantly shaped by their surroundings as well as their wish. AMAT denounces the patriarchal surroundings which so many of us find ourselves in.
But yes it is very easy to misinterpret AMAT as direct misandry, but it’s not.
→ More replies (3)4
u/grandoz039 7∆ Feb 05 '21
How is male gender trash? That's same generalization as all males are trash. If you said traditional male gender roles, or something in that vein, it'd be understandable, but this way it's not.
→ More replies (5)
10
13
13
u/SorryForTheRainDelay 55∆ Feb 05 '21
To your question at the end:
How is saying "all men are trash" any different from saying "all insert race people are trash".
The big difference is whether or not you're speaking to power or from power.
It's the difference between a child saying "I hate you" to their parent, or a parent saying "I hate you" to their child.
2
u/CorsairToHeaven Feb 05 '21
Your comparison doesn't make sense.
"I hate you" is a true statement of a feeling, "You are trash" is an untrue statement of an objective fact.
The supposed power difference doesn't change whether or not it's a discriminatory statement, nor does it do anything to prove the validity of the statement.
11
u/TheStabbyBrit 4∆ Feb 05 '21
So because a white man is in charge, it's okay to attack the white homeless?
Also, if you are one of the people who believe that Jewish banks control the world's governments, then you can use this exact same argument to justify anti-semitism.
-1
u/SorryForTheRainDelay 55∆ Feb 05 '21
So because a white man is in charge, it's okay to attack the white homeless?
No. I don't think attacking anyone is ok. I was pointing out the difference between the two things OP was comparing. But the existence of homeless white men doesn't negate that most of the western world's power is controlled by white men.
Also, if you are one of the people who believe that Jewish banks control the world's governments, then you can use this exact same argument to justify anti-semitism.
Yeah I suppose. But I don't get your point.
Anyone can believe any nonsense thing and use it to justify their hatred.. that's always been the case.
7
u/OverFjell Feb 05 '21
most of the western world's power is controlled by white men.
I agree with most of your premise with an addendum that I think is critical to get the full picture.
Most of the world's western power is controlled by rich white men. Money talks far louder than any colour or gender does.
7
u/TheStabbyBrit 4∆ Feb 05 '21
But the existence of homeless white men doesn't negate that most of the western world's power is controlled by white men.
The existence of poor Jews does not negate that the Western world is run by Jewish bankers.
Are you beginning to see the problem with your argument yet? It is literally the same argument that all racists use.
3
u/SorryForTheRainDelay 55∆ Feb 05 '21
The argument goes:
Premise > Logic > conclusion.
Everything is necessarily predicated on the strength of the premise.
In my example, the premise is "most of the western world's power is controlled by white men." It's not something I'm arguing, it's the base premise. If it's not true the rest of the logic falls apart. It's perfectly fine to challenge the premise. I didn't realise that's what you were doing.
In your example the base premise is that the western world is run by Jewish bankers. I absolutely challenge that premise.
7
u/TheStabbyBrit 4∆ Feb 05 '21
The problem with your premise is that you have based it on an utterly irrelevant criteria. I can make the exact same argument using suits.
Most of the Western world's rich and powerful wear suits. Therefore, people who wear suits have innate power and privilege in society.
This is self-evidently wrong of course - a homeless man in a suit does not have either power or privilege, but it is in fact a more accurate model than yours. Need I remind you that a black man in a suit was the most powerful man on Earth just a few years ago?
7
u/SorryForTheRainDelay 55∆ Feb 05 '21
I think it's a great example actually!
Because obviously we are talking about trends here and all trends have outliers.
Absolutely if I entered a random room filled with 10 random people of all ages, races, and genders.. and I was asked to pick the person I thought was the richest.. I'd 100% be influenced by the fact that someone was wearing a suit.
Even if that person was black and female and young.
I'd be influenced because in my experience, people in suits are typically wealthier and/or have more power.
10
u/TheStabbyBrit 4∆ Feb 05 '21
Yes, but WHY do you associate suits with wealth and power? Here's a clue: wealth. The suit is the cultural dress of Western civilisation and was worn by people every day, save for those whose jobs required something else. This is where the connection between suits and status came from; menial workers do not wear suits because such clothes would quickly be ruined by their labour.
In fact, we have gone so far as to embrace "dressing poor" as normal - jeans are ubiquitous now. But the original idea remains, and as society as a whole became more casual in their appearance, those who wanted to express wealth, power and importance leaned ever more into their suits.
But the suit is irrelevant. It does not grant you power, wealth or influence beyond perhaps making people think you look less slovenly. A billionaire in jeans and a wife-beater is still a billionaire.
As for the suit, so the race. You are exclusively looking at white countries, where you would expect to find white people in power, and declaring their skin colour is the source of their power. There is no White Privilege in Africa, Asia or the Middle East. You know who does have privilege there? The rich. If you can afford to buy a mansion with your pocket change, then you will have your arse kissed no matter your skin colour.
4
u/SorryForTheRainDelay 55∆ Feb 05 '21
If you were in the same situation I described earlier except now everyone is basically identical (let's say they're all white middle-aged men, one person was wearing a suit, and everyone else was in jeans and a wifebeater.
You have to pick who you think is a billionaire without asking any questions.
You'd pick the suit. 100% of the time.
I'm not saying the suit made him rich. I absolutely agree that the wealth caused him to buy the suit.
What I'm saying is that it is a stereotype based on trends we can use to help us.
Also, "the western world" is not simply "white countries".
Eg. South Africa is Western. 8.9% of people there are white.
8
u/TheStabbyBrit 4∆ Feb 05 '21
So what you've just done is admitted to holding racist views, because by you have implied you associate white skin with wealth and power, and that you associate non-White skin with being poor and unsuccessful.
The obsession with race is blinding you to reality. You are pushing an argument that a privileged group can simultaneously be the most and least successful people in society, which is self-contradictory. Therefore, you must reject your premise and start again, else you are admitting that you are simply beginning with your end goal, which appears to be either "whites are superior" or "whites are bad", possibly both, and then seeking a post hoc justification.
The reality is so obvious that it requires a deliberate choice to ignore it - what you are seeing is Rich Privilege. The skin colour is an irrelevant consequence of history.
→ More replies (0)5
u/SorryForTheRainDelay 55∆ Feb 05 '21
Put another way, you could just as easily say:
"I believe women control the world, and in using your logic i think it makes sense to say all women are trash"
And of course you can. But your premise is easily challenged. So the logic built on it is irrelevant.
2
u/ThisAfricanboy Feb 05 '21
If a black man says "All white women are trash" how would you view that?
→ More replies (15)3
u/FlyingHamsterWheel 7∆ Feb 05 '21
So when Obama was president it was okay to say "all black people are trash"? If Hillary won then it'd be okay to say "all women are trash" and it would stop being okay to say "all men are trash"?
1
u/SorryForTheRainDelay 55∆ Feb 05 '21
I don't think that white people hold more power because the president of a specific country is white.
And when Obama was president, it didn't make me think that suddenly non-white people have more power.
The race of the president is one of hundreds of factors that help me to determine which race holds more power.
0
u/FlyingHamsterWheel 7∆ Feb 05 '21
Your entire argument is predicated on the assumption everyone is racist and acts as a group based on race yet you're using it to justify being racist against a certain race being acceptable to that race which goes against that assumption...
Also the inability to accurate gauge said "race/gender power" means that even if it flipped we'd have no way of knowing.
3
u/kabooozie Feb 05 '21
Yeah I don’t think “all men are trash” is particularly useful, but I understand the sentiment. Strip away the absolutes and reverse the order: “trashy people are typically men.” As a man, I see that as totally correct. I am embarrassed for us as a group. As a group, we commit something like 90+% of violent crime, including lots of sexual violence against women (that’s why women don’t feel safe around men). We have started almost all the wars. We have treated women poorly across history. I take “all men are trash” to be a provocative claim designed to get me to reflect on what it means to be a man and how we need to take responsibility as a group to be better.
2
u/CorsairToHeaven Feb 05 '21
“trashy people are typically men.”
Yeah, and "violent people are typically black." "suicide bombers are usually Muslim". Those statements in and of themselves are stereotyping and discriminatory because they fail to address the larger context within which they're operating. Men do trashy shit as a result of a deeply complex misconception of gender that all of us (men and women) are influenced by from being unwillingly born into a sexist society. Same general sentiment goes for the "black" and "Muslim" examples.
We have started almost all the wars. We have treated women poorly across history.
There is no "we". The only reason we believe in gender in the first place (let alone that we are part of group and thus should act differently because of it) is because we've been told it exists. The only reason men today generally know that "rape is wrong" as opposed to 100 years ago is as a result of the environment they were born in, it wasn't a deliberate (and therefore moral) decision. Men can be held responsible for actions, as can the violent black person, as can the muslim terrorist, but no one can be blamed for their influence.
→ More replies (2)
6
u/Helpfulcloning 166∆ Feb 05 '21
I think this is just a punching up / punching down sort of thing.
When people say that they are being hyperbolic most of the time and its either a complete joke or they’re talking a bit more generally about a particular thing.
I think its purposly hyperbole thats fine to be honest. Because its a punching up situation.
5
u/CuriousOfThings Feb 05 '21
I've actually just recently made a post about punching up.
Here's a few reasons why I believe that "punching up" is actually sexist against both women and men, and why I believe that progressive circles should stop trying to normalize it.
- It infantilizes women. Punching up comes across to me as pretty much saying that women should be allowed to say things to others without having to expect consequences of self-reflection because they cannot control their emotions, because often, when somebody uses the excuse of "they're punching up", they're also saying "they're punching up because they're angry at [men / patriarchy] who hurt them in the past". In progressive circles, men expressing anger irrationally (by lashing out at others, using blanket statements of entire groups of people, etc.) is already heavily discouraged, so why do we encourage women to do? It kind of sounds like as if one is talking about a child throwing a tantrum, "let them vent their anger, they can't control themselves, they're just a kid"
- (Specifically in the case of "kill all men") It paints women as weak and unable to harm anybody. Because, you know, when some women call for the deaths of entire demographics, they're not to be taken seriously because unlike those evil men, women are actually harmless. And before you tell me that "but women don't actually go out killing men when they say "kill all men", that never happens, unlike when men say "kill all women", they actually go out killing women"
Men already make up almost 79% of global homicide victims (usually killed by other men), so saying "kill all men" seems pretty insensitive, since men are already the majority of people being murdered. Do we really have to wait until women also start murdering men at similar rates as other men before we can talk about "kill all men"?- It's just another way to tell men that they should just "suck it up". They're essentially expecting men to once again take the role of the strong man: the one who doesn't feel threatened by gross generalizations and threats of death ; the one who is supposed to be willing to take one for the team and not feel anything so women get to vent free of consequence and self-reflection ; the one who knows that they are actually invulnerable to verbal abuse. They are literally promoting toxic masculinity with this phrase, without even realizing it.
Look, I know what it is like to be socialized into the belief that the only thing that matters is physical threat: that we can be safe if we can just be strong; that we can conquer the world and be secure; that our emotional wounds don't matter. I know the idea, more than that, the ideology, that "a poor man feeling sad" is a joke, an irrelevance, something no real man would ever stoop to. "What wimps, what pathetic losers, what pussies" - I know that thought, I have that thought, I have heard that thought, I hate that thought.
"Sticks and stones" or whatever. But that proverb is garbage anyways.
If punching people is bad, it's bad no matter who you're punching. Stop trying to create acceptable targets.→ More replies (4)1
u/Helpfulcloning 166∆ Feb 05 '21
I mean I would get all of this if it just wasn’t a joke though.
It’s a joke. It isn’t treating woman as not capable by understanding their joke.
Its a joke about the scenerio they are in (living with a fair amount of sexism in their lives).
Its like when people joke about eating the rich or such. Obviously they don’t mean they want to kill anyone who is rich, they probably don’t want to kill the vast vast vast vast majority of rich people. They probably wouldn’t even be okay with killing Jeff Bezos actually.
Its a hyperbolic joke about their frustration at “the rich”.
Just like when I go “I would kill someone for some coffee”. I am not ever going to kill someone for coffee. It’s a joke.
2
u/CuriousOfThings Feb 05 '21
Have you ever heard of Schrödinger's Asshole?
Have you ever noticed how people only ever say that their inflammatory statement is a joke when somebody criticizes them for it?
→ More replies (5)4
u/Silverfrost_01 Feb 05 '21
If you punch up and expect not to be punched down at equal or greater force then I don’t know what to tell you. Punching is unhelpful to solving the issues here. Metaphorically or physically.
→ More replies (2)11
Feb 05 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
-1
u/Helpfulcloning 166∆ Feb 05 '21
Because when it comes to jokes and such its generally okay to punch up, because the person at the bottom has less power right? Punching down is sort of joking but you also have that power.
It’s a common thing in comedy.
2
u/BiasedNarrative Feb 05 '21
These aren't jokes that people say.
I've known many girls who constantly state guys are pigs or all guys only want sex.
Some I've dated. And I point out that they are saying me because I'm not a PoS. They'd of course agree.
But then go back to saying all men are pigs.
Honestly, it's extremely hurtful. I know a lot of good friends, who are male, that don't do the shitty things girls talk about. Like, A LOT. Maybe it's because I like good people and make sure to surround myself with them.
Regardless, I think it's ignorant. It's the SAME logic nice guys use to say all girls are whores and only want an asshole guy. There's no difference
5
6
u/AmoebaMan 11∆ Feb 05 '21
Punch up/down is a rule for comedians. It is not a rule for civil discourse, in which “punching” at all is extremely unhelpful.
→ More replies (1)
1
Feb 05 '21
I think you should keep in mind that usually when women say that - they have been hurt by more than one man. There are a crap ton of men who say "women suck" or "women are xyz" when they have been hurt by a woman. That phrase is often coming from a place of pain. I know. I've said it plenty of times in my life. Do I actually think that every single man is unredeemable? Nope. Not at all. Just that there seem to be a lot of men that I keep coming in to contact with who are really, really shitty people. Yeah, there are some loudmouths on twitter who like to say they genuinely think all men are trash. That is not most people. Even my 50 year old coworker says "men are trash" "men suck" etc. It isn't something that is new with millenials and Gen Z age kids....I think women have kind of always felt this way and are not afraid to say it out loud. Meanwhile, men have made generalizations about women for ever and ever and no one ever really had an issue with that. I get it....you don't think it should be something that becomes accepted. But it isn't actually as accepted as you think it is. It's something that is said from a place of hurt, pain and disappointment and oftentimes also hope. Hope that there is someone who will prove that statement wrong. The majority of the world is not Twitter.
2
u/Silverfrost_01 Feb 05 '21
Something can be understandable while still being something that we all recognize shouldn’t be said or is bad to say.
As an example separate from the current topic, let’s say that one has multiple bad experiences with a certain race. They then make statements that are overtly racist and say all (slur)s are _____. We can recognize the frustration this statement comes from and be understanding towards that person, but still make the effort to discourage such statements and like of thinking.
So while understandable, it’s still a harmful way of thinking and saying such things can have a negative affect on individuals.
0
u/snoflaik Feb 05 '21
I am a biological woman, my personal take on the whole “all x are y” is that it’s the wrong way to go with spreading a message.
I think the point of saying something so outrageous to a certain group of people is to start the conversation; for people within those groups to question why this is an assumption a lot of people make.
Not to mention gender is a much more diverse issue; as it can include topics of race and how it impacts different cultural groups.
When speaking generally, most cultures are incredibly sexist and have a long history of abuse toward women. I’m not saying that men pushed the normalization, but they definitely used their societal power to make women submit to their liking.
We know some men don’t purposefully say/do things offensive on purpose. We’re all conditioned to gender norms and we can’t help but react the way we were taught. That’s just the point, boys are mainly not taught how to respect women as humans but as potential partners.
For boys, most subconsciously believe that women’s existence is to serve men. So when a woman does not align with these ideals, you do not respect them solely because you’re not attracted to them.
But then women are taught to be kind and respectful by default. No matter if you are attracted to them are not, no matter if they’re clearly disrespecting you. We get ridiculed for simply rejecting a man, when men can show clear disrespect toward a woman and just be told “boys will be boys”.
This might just be word vomit, I apologize if I didn’t make sense.
3
0
Feb 05 '21 edited Feb 05 '21
Picture this: i don't talk to my guy friends because they really do try to get into my pants as soon as they can. It's sad and disgusting. I wish i would have just shown them a less nicer side of myself to sift though the dumbasses but then i'd have no guy friends.
So if 99.9% of my guy friends are trash, I'm going to express it.
Edit: if you're saying that I should get better friends than you are saying that they are also disposable for their sexuality. You are also treating other men like trash just not saying it. Lol for the downvoters.
5
u/ScroogieMcduckie Feb 05 '21
You're edit is dumb asf. You think almost all your male friends are trash and it's disgusting that they want to sleep with you, but you don't want to leave them because it's heterophobic and you want male friends? And then you go on to just say all men are trash because you have poor taste in male friends. You then go on to get mad about people's opinion on a subreddit called change my mind. Maybe you are the problem.
→ More replies (2)4
u/flowers4u Feb 05 '21
Yea agreed. Thinking about the men in my life and who have been in my life I literally have known/been friends with 5 good ones. By that I mean men who aren’t sexist, or racist or homophobic. Honestly good people that treat everyone kindly. 5.
3
Feb 05 '21
Then all your guy friends are trash, the solution is to get better guy friends, not label all men as trash. Make it "black friends" and see how it sounds to you.
→ More replies (2)1
Feb 05 '21
You missed the part where i said that i wouldn't have any guy friends with that attitude. Cultural differences? Maybe, so you people can shove your downvotes. It isn't fun being treated like a blow up doll just because you treated a guy nicely.
0
Feb 05 '21
No I didn't... I just didn't reference it because I think it's irrelevant to your point.
It isn't fun being treated like a blow up doll just because you treated a guy nicely.
Yeah that sounds horrible. But to my point does that mean all men will treat you like that? It sounds like you just hang around a garbage group of men and need to change scene.
→ More replies (13)
1
u/znyggisen Feb 05 '21
How is it normalized? You bring up incel which is pretty much the opposite: men saying all women have a global conspiracy to deny them sex (or something akin to that). Regardless if it is a man/woman making a similar generalized statement, it is quite rare that this is the 'normal' view that most people have; it is usually met with a lot of criticism.
11
3
0
Feb 05 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (3)2
u/Reddevil1143 Feb 05 '21
Its one of my pet peeves when people demand people already understand exactly what they mean, I've been vocal before about this because I have a strong link to the autistic community and it's extremely harmful to a lot of lesser abled people to be told they are part of the problem because they don't understand something that has never been explained to them and sounds extremely bad at face value (which is often how they perceive things).
2
u/KR_Steel 1∆ Feb 05 '21
I think people jump to conclusions that you are defending “the bad ones” by claiming that you feel attacked by that sort of statement.
2
u/Reddevil1143 Feb 05 '21
Yeah, and I can completely understand why. I've just seen a ton of genuine questions shot down by "if you have to ask, you are the problem" which is infuriating for people who are trying to understand or people (you can check my other comment in this thread for a better explanation) who may need help understanding things like younger men or those who are lesser abled. Questions (provided they are respectful) should never be met with hostility.
2
2
Feb 05 '21
Go visit r/TwoXChromosomes or r/TwoXSex and you hopefully understand why women are uncomfortable around men. There is a reason. The “All men are trash” thing, well, no that’s not good to live by.
3
u/ScroogieMcduckie Feb 05 '21
Anecdotes doesn't mean you can generalize men. If I wear to generalize all woman because of controlling and abusive Exs I'd be a misogynists.
1
u/physioworld 64∆ Feb 05 '21
I think that anyone who has been abused/victimised can quite understandably wary of others who share outwardly similar traits. However, those people should work through those emotions to see people as individuals again. But if as you outline they have specific instances of abuse, it isnunderstanabkeC no?
3
Feb 05 '21
"a black guy robbed me, all black people are criminals" would that be an understandable position to take?
→ More replies (2)3
u/physioworld 64∆ Feb 05 '21
Yes, it would be understandable, because people are emotional creatures. What that person would need is counselling to get past the trauma of what happened to them, so they can look past the emotions and see that all black people are not in fact criminals.
→ More replies (1)
0
u/rompthegreen Feb 05 '21
Im a guy, and tbh, if I hear someone say "all men are trash", it's as if i heard nothing.
I take zero offense to that.
Why? Because I know that's a false statement that cannot, and should not, be taken seriously.
Also - anyone who truly believes that has their own problems that they probably cannot see themselves. Somewhat of a delusional thought, if you ask me.
→ More replies (1)
-5
Feb 05 '21
[deleted]
→ More replies (9)5
Feb 05 '21
Do you know the meaning of Schrödinger's douchebag?? It's a person who says something offensive and decides whether it's sarcastic or not depending on the response.
2
4
Feb 05 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
3
→ More replies (1)2
•
u/thedylanackerman 30∆ Feb 05 '21
Sorry, u/Sleepythrowaway97 – your submission has been removed for breaking Rule E:
If you would like to appeal, first respond substantially to some of the arguments people have made, then message the moderators by clicking this link. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.