How shutting out men from the conversation is an obstacle to change • Hacker News Board

Re: How shutting out men from the conversation is an obstacle to change

#51

Post by dijit » Wed, Jan 23, 2019, 5:15 AM UTC

alphabettsy wrote: post #46

dijit wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am one of the men who feels defensive, although I try very hard to see both sides. I assume you also wish to know the thoughts of detractors so I'll tell you how I feel and why, and you can decide if you believe me. The topic of social justice is very broad and I'll touch on it broadly as it's (sadly) very complex to distill but needs to be mentioned because the context is incredibly important; I would like to focu…

This article and my comment are about sexual assault and consent. How does what you’ve said in any way address those issues? Surely your opinion is important, but it’s regarding an altogether different topic. I can’t think of anything more frustrating right now than trying to have an in-depth and honest conversation about a topic and having some unreletead and lengthy defense.

My response is towards a specific phrase (and incredulity) from the parent.

The parent is wondering “why” men at large would be so defensive and not engage as the author of the main article has. I sought to share my particular feelings, I’m not sure why that is frustrating to you.

Re: How shutting out men from the conversation is an obstacle to change

#52

Post by JonGarfield » Thu, Jan 24, 2019, 2:13 AM UTC

woodandsteel wrote: post #49

JonGarfield wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Start by assuming that not all women who are friendly towards you "want you." That default assumption seems to be ingrained in some (by no means all) men and that is what gets them in trouble. If you start with the default assumption that women who are friendly are ... just being friendly then misunderstandings are far fewer. Most men who approach you are just being friendly rather than coming on to you. Do you requi…

That's excellent advice. But I am saying it is a lot more likely men will start thinking and behaving that way if women explain it all to men, and if they behave in a consistent manner themselves.

What, exactly, are women supposed to explain to men? And why is it their job? (Honest question as I'm having difficulty seeing how this is supposed to work on an interpersonal level and no woman can speak for all women.)

Individuals can be consistent, populations are not. Men as a group do not all behave the same (aka "consistent" for their gender) or all have the same expectations, just as not all women behave/expect the same.

There has never been consistency at a population level when it comes to how men and women receive advances from the other.

Re: How shutting out men from the conversation is an obstacle to change

#53

Post by CryptoPunk » Thu, Jan 24, 2019, 2:34 AM UTC

krapp wrote: post #37

CryptoPunk wrote: post #24

>>This is not a defence of sexual assault, nor men’s rights activism. There is nothing wrong with men's rights activism.

>There is nothing wrong with men's rights activism. In the abstract, no... but in practice, men's rights activism is so wrapped up in anti-feminist conspiracy theory and incel misogyny that it does harm both to women and men.

The same kind of unsubstantiated broad-brushing can be done to women's rights activism. It's unfair and not constructive.

>>wrapped up in anti-feminist conspiracy theory

How is that any different than believing that a patriarchy controls society and imposes gendered norms to discriminate against and subjugate women? That's a mainstream view of feminism.

Re: How shutting out men from the conversation is an obstacle to change

#54

Post by woodandsteel » Thu, Jan 24, 2019, 3:10 AM UTC

JonGarfield wrote: post #52

woodandsteel wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's excellent advice. But I am saying it is a lot more likely men will start thinking and behaving that way if women explain it all to men, and if they behave in a consistent manner themselves.

What, exactly, are women supposed to explain to men? And why is it their job? (Honest question as I'm having difficulty seeing how this is supposed to work on an interpersonal level and no woman can speak for all women.) Individuals can be consistent, populations are not. Men as a group do not all behave the same (aka "consistent" for their gender) or all have the same expectations, just as not all women behave/expec…

>There has never been consistency at a population level when it comes to how men and women receive advances from the other.

True, but there are norms and averages.

>What, exactly, are women supposed to explain to men? And why is it their job? (Honest question as I'm having difficulty seeing how this is supposed to work on an interpersonal level and no woman can speak for all women.)

I explained this in my original comment. Women should have a reasonably standard way of behaving when they are sexually attracted and a perceivably different way of behaving when they are just feeling friendly. And they ought to explain to men what the two sorts of behavior are, so men can spot the difference. I don't see why that is unreasonable.

Re: How shutting out men from the conversation is an obstacle to change

#55

Post by JonGarfield » Thu, Jan 24, 2019, 11:50 PM UTC

woodandsteel wrote: post #54

JonGarfield wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What, exactly, are women supposed to explain to men? And why is it their job? (Honest question as I'm having difficulty seeing how this is supposed to work on an interpersonal level and no woman can speak for all women.) Individuals can be consistent, populations are not. Men as a group do not all behave the same (aka "consistent" for their gender) or all have the same expectations, just as not all women behave/expec…

>There has never been consistency at a population level when it comes to how men and women receive advances from the other. True, but there are norms and averages. >What, exactly, are women supposed to explain to men? And why is it their job? (Honest question as I'm having difficulty seeing how this is supposed to work on an interpersonal level and no woman can speak for all women.) I explained this in my original co…

The fact that someone can't perceive a difference doesn't mean it isn't there. People are not as difficult to read as you are making them out to be. And if they seem to be, then that is a problem that other people can't fix for you. It is a skill gap that an individual needs to close on their own.

I've already said why your position is unreasonable, but I'll say it one last time: These homogeneous populations with homogeneous behaviours don't exist. Even within cultures and within generations, behaviour differs according to lived experience. You will falsely rule people in as well as out if you rely on some kind of shortcut rule of thumb to indicate interest. This applies to both sexes.

Re: How shutting out men from the conversation is an obstacle to change

#56

Post by alphabettsy » Fri, Jan 25, 2019, 4:54 AM UTC

dijit wrote: post #51

alphabettsy wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This article and my comment are about sexual assault and consent. How does what you’ve said in any way address those issues? Surely your opinion is important, but it’s regarding an altogether different topic. I can’t think of anything more frustrating right now than trying to have an in-depth and honest conversation about a topic and having some unreletead and lengthy defense.

My response is towards a specific phrase (and incredulity) from the parent. The parent is wondering “why” men at large would be so defensive and not engage as the author of the main article has. I sought to share my particular feelings, I’m not sure why that is frustrating to you.

It’s frustrating because while your point of view is helpful and feelings are valid it’s entirely misdirected since you don’t reference at all the issues being discussed.