Point number #2 and point #4 are sometimes untrue.
When?
There are times we when feminists are attacking men and not just Patriarchy. There are times when it does seem like it is men vs. women.
Like… when?
Like how about when women go “men are pigs . . .”? Sorry, but I can’t think of any good examples and I am go searching. But I think it is fairly obvious that some extreme feminists attack men and not just patriarchy.
When they are untrue, imo, it becomes valid to bring up “Not All Men”. Point #5 shows this. Point #5 basically argues that there are no “good guys”.
Well, I mean, it is true. Every human being on this Earth is susceptible to bad behavior. It’s in our DNA. It’s why we have civilization. You, me, and every man on Earth are susceptible to objectifying women and giving in to bad social constructs.
I agree no one is perfect, but there are some humans worse than others. Being susceptible is not the same as being guilty and it doesn’t mean you aren’t a “good guy”. Also women are also susceptible.
True. I’m not sure what you’re arguing against here.
The idea that there are no “good guys”
Still not seeing where someone argued this point.
I disagree with your framing that there are no “good guys,” as you put it,
I didn’t put it that way, the article did.
because there are good people in the world. There’s good men in the world. But every good person is susceptible to evil, just as all evil people are susceptible to good.
read what I wrote above.
I did.
ok.
Cool.
Should it really be all that surprising that I would take that as an attack on all men and view it in a men vs. women kind of way??? The same is true for point #6. I especially can’t stand the attitude at the end of point #6, that is all about men vs. women and attacking men.
How so?
point #5 was basically looked like it was attacking all men and saying there weren’t any good ones. That sure seems like an attack on all men.
After reading the article a second time, I think I get your point now.
Thank you.
Sure.
I think the author takes liberties with the phrase “good guy.” At that moment, I think that that phrase is being used rhetorically, not literally.
possibly, but that is not how it comes off to me.
Your problem. There’s more to writing than just the literal meaning of it.
I’m sure the author believes that there are good men out there, but she used the phrase “good guy” to illustrate what many men want to present themselves to the world as in these conversations.
I am sure there are plenty of men that wish to be seen one of the good guys when in reality they are not. The problem is, the way the article words point #5 comes off as attacking the real good guys along with the fake ones.
::shrug::
I think you’re reading it wrong, but there’s nothing I can really do about that.
I just don’t like the attitude in point #6. It stereotypes about the male ego and it refers to men as “privileged people” to justify putting all men into this one negative group.
Men are privileged. Men are sexually harassed less than women, and there’s a lot more men in many fields of work than women.
Did you miss it when I said “There is some truth to it, but I think the “privilege” some think white people and men have is exaggerated.”? I think some think the privilege is the same was it was back in the 1950’s. Things have changed. Privilege isn’t what it used to be.
True, but it still exists.
Men should of course listen to what women have to say, but this doesn’t mean we shouldn’t defend ourselves when attacked.
Let’s say that men were, in some way, unprivileged in some way. Would you appreciate a woman going “well, actually” to you and undermining your points? No. In this theoretical situation, it’s the women’s place to listen, not talk.
Before I would judge something as undermining my points, I would have to know exactly what she said and how she said it. I wouldn’t necessarily take her saying “not all women are like that” as undermining what I was saying.
This isn’t about defending my damaged ego, this is about fairness. It is not fair assume guilty due to group.
I think some part of your ego is hurt. Why are you defending this so voraciously?
Maybe I just sick and tired of articles like this about sexism and racism. Maybe I am tired of being groups with men that act like assholes, just because I am one. I know I am sick and tired of being blamed for slavery and jim crow. I know I am sick and tired of being assumed that I am some sort of racist because I am white. I am sick and tired of being in the group that is blamed by some for all of society’s ills.
Yet again:
::shrug::
You shouldn’t feel alone in this, I’ve felt like it before. But you have to introspect and think about your actions and your words.
Maybe someone should tell the writer of the article to think about her words.
I’m not sure why you’re treating this article like it’s some offensive BS.
Also it talks about the opportunity to learn about another group’s experience, which “nobody owes them”. I am pretty writer does want men to know and understand about the experiences of women, but I and other men are mind readers. How would we learn what the writer would want us to learn without such opportunities?
Read? Listen?
I try. But maybe all groups need to do some reading and listening to the other group. Maybe some women could learn from experiences of when men were falsely accused of sexism or were victims of sexism themselves. Maybe some black people could learn from experiences of when white people were falsely accused of being racist or were victims of racism themselves.
The problems you’re pointing out here are compartively small boar to the problems minorities and women face all the time.
Maybe you don’t owe us, but if you want us to understand the lesson, you better teach it. Deciding not to teach the lesson because “nobody owes them” benefits no one.
You’re correct, that is a little weird.
But I will admit that “Not All Men” shouldn’t be used to excuse you when you are part of the problem. Finally of course the article has to bring up privilege. There is some truth to it, but I think the “privilege” some think white people and men have is exaggerated.
You are a white man. I bet that might distort your viewpoint.
no more than being black or a women would distort your viewpoint.
Not untrue, but I think you’re missing the point.
This is a conversation about women. Their views are the main object of this discussion.
Seems to me that men and all bad stuff they do was the object of the article.
Also forgotten is the very slight minor privilege women and black people have: They don’t get blamed for the acts of a few.
I’m sure that many times, women and minorities are blamed for the acts of a few.
When they are, the blamers are called sexist and racist and their complaints are ignored as such(and probably should be).
There are still millions of people in America that have regressive viewpoints, just like there are millions of people in America that eat DiGiorno Pizza.
agreed. But not everyone eats DiGiorno Pizza. This is true and it shouldn’t be wrong to say something that is truth.
Ok.
They don’t get blamed for acts that happened years before they were born. They don’t get articles like this written about them telling not bring up completely true facts like “Not All Men”.
As I said before, I’m sure these articles are being written. Maybe we just don’t read or see them, but I bet these sorts of views are held by many people.
Again, those that hold those view points about black people and women are called sexists and racists.
See above.
I responded above.
Ok.
I guess I grew up with a character flaw: I don’t think people are guilty due to their sex or race. I guess I listened to MLK’s I have a dream speech too many times. I was taught that stereotyping is wrong. Sorry.
There’s no need to be sorry. I think you get the wrong point from the article.
It is how the article comes across to me.
Well, there’s not much I can do about that.
agreed.
Ok.