How shutting out men from the conversation is an obstacle to change
1–10 of 56 posts
Re: How shutting out men from the conversation is an obstacle to change
#2I suspect people will be reactionary because of the title, but the content is much different than what I was personally expecting.
As a corollary to the article; I've always felt it's critical not to assume too much as a man.
The line between being assertive and creepy is very fuzzy and depends entirely on the womans perception of you (which, is essentially unknowable).
There is no easy answer, men will in most cases have a certain level of physical dominance over a woman and thus we will always be a potential threat and _must_ endeavour to walk on tippy-toes.
However this requires women to meet us half-way. Make your intentions known and don't think less of men for not being instigators.
As another, unrelated point; As a guy it is _scary_ to attempt being what men are told they should be (confident, assertive, charming) and it takes a significant amount of bravery to do it in what I would assume is the majority of cases. If our intentions are misconstrued or our conduct falls to the side of what's acceptable (remember; we're usually winging it) then we risk a significant amount of social ostracism. Even approaching a woman is exceedingly difficult.
The irony here is that those who don't care about their social credibility are the ones that give the rest a poor name by sending unsolicited pictures of their genitals, cat calling and pestering women in workplace environments.
Re: How shutting out men from the conversation is an obstacle to change
#3I think if more men were capable of making such a well thought out and logical argument we’d be farther along, but in many cases men have been extremely defensive and the most attention has gone to those responses rather than something more substantial such as this.
That women are socialized to not be the aggressors and must be pursued not be seen as promiscuous is another problem that feeds into unclear boundaries regarding consent. All part of a larger conversation that can’t be had by pretending there is no problem or by blaming all men or all women.
Re: How shutting out men from the conversation is an obstacle to change
#4Maybe we've redefined what patriarchy means, but going by the dictionary this article, and the associated viewpoint, is clearly reversing the cause and effect.
In context of broad society patriarchy is "control by men of a disproportionately large share of power". It is obvious that, given there are a small number of leadership roles, if one gender is more assertive, aggressive or violent (or indeed prone to risk taking - although the article does not mention that one) then that gender will end up with a disproportionate representation in the military and from there social leadership positions.
Patriarchy doesn't cause male behavior, male behavior causes patriarchy.
I'm throwing an assumption here that armies lead governments. Most countries need a few military victories early on to legitimise their control of territory.
Re: How shutting out men from the conversation is an obstacle to change
#5I think if more men were capable of making such a well thought out and logical argument we’d be farther along, but in many cases men have been extremely defensive and the most attention has gone to those responses rather than something more substantial such as this. That women are socialized to not be the aggressors and must be pursued not be seen as promiscuous is another problem that feeds into unclear boundaries r…
[deleted]
Re: How shutting out men from the conversation is an obstacle to change
#6I think if more men were capable of making such a well thought out and logical argument we’d be farther along, but in many cases men have been extremely defensive and the most attention has gone to those responses rather than something more substantial such as this. That women are socialized to not be the aggressors and must be pursued not be seen as promiscuous is another problem that feeds into unclear boundaries r…
Regardless on the merit on the argument, I expect a storm for Mr. Fard.
Re: How shutting out men from the conversation is an obstacle to change
#7I think if more men were capable of making such a well thought out and logical argument we’d be farther along, but in many cases men have been extremely defensive and the most attention has gone to those responses rather than something more substantial such as this. That women are socialized to not be the aggressors and must be pursued not be seen as promiscuous is another problem that feeds into unclear boundaries r…
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 focus on one point but really it's a barrage from all angles and that's important in understanding why some people might feel like me (or, much much worse as the case seems to be).
So, I'll get to the point.
I'm a white guy, I'm nearly 30 and I have a job in tech.
I was raised by a single mother in one of the most impoverished neighbourhoods in one of the most impoverished cities in the UK.
I understand that my life was almost certainly better than those outside of the country so please don't assume I'm making a plea to your empathy, I'm just laying context.
Due to my relatively poor socio-economic status I was not only surrounded by crime, it was a part of my life intrinsically and unavoidably. My mother could not pull herself out of a benefits cycle because I was a sickly child and was the target of several gangs in the area due to my lack of affiliation with any of them and desire to do nothing more than read books about how computers worked.
I was raised in the 90s, again to a single-mother, where as far as I understood, women were to be respected as equals to men, the womens empowerment movement was strong. Indians and Pakistanis were very populous in my region and I learned about other cultures by being very close friends and neighbours with them. They were also poor. Thus many bonds were forged because we had a common enemy: our poverty.
I managed to pull myself out of that situation with the help of a library, lots of missed school and a deep unyielding passion for technology that after much struggling led to a job; for which I had to sacrifice everything and I happily did so.
--
Why is this important?
Mostly because the sentiment is that I should make way for people (based on gender and race) to come into a field that I struggled all my life to get into, something I had a genuine passion for since I touched my mothers commadore64 when I was 6 years old. A job that nobody wanted me to do. (Mother wanted me to be a lawyer or plumber.. not sure what the relation is there).
I'm not sure what makes them more worthy than me to get a job other than their race and genitalia, and for me that feels inherently sexist/racist. Because I never even think about race/gender until someone points a finger at it, I feel like _I_ would have already been giving them a fair shout, if I met someone with a genuine passion for tech that I have, then there's absolutely no way that I'd think less of them based on their skin or genitals-
It's just completely not in the vein of how I'm thinking. It's like looking at an elephant and saying "you could fit a razor scooter in that things butt"; you don't even think about it until it's mentioned. If someone said to you "don't put a razor scooter in that elephants butt" you'd be offended at the assumption that you'd want to do that (or even thought of it) in the first place.. but I digress.
I consider women and people of other races my equals, not that I have any special status I just think we're all struggling with our mortality, fragile bodies, insecurities and nobody is immune to that; I would never be a barrier for anyone capable; but I'm being told I must favour specific classifications people by HR at my company because it makes the company look good. At the same time we have companies like github who actively dissuade white people from managing positions, and list "white" women as being the biggest barriers to inclusion.[0]
We're being told that men have all the privilege, and that may be true right now but while social convention for women is changing in a way that can include choice, men do not have the same freedoms. And while it might be true for now that most top CEO positions are held by men; young women are out-earning their male counterparts in the beginning of their careers hour-for-hour[1]. Add to that women are graduating in significantly higher numbers than men[2] and you see that the future will be wildly different without resorting to tactics that I would consider diversive and polarizing.
We're being told that we're second-class by some very "forward thinking" US companies (Google, Github are strong examples) due to us being too many in technology, as if it's our fault that we were driven to this and should shoulder some blame as a gender/race.
And now there is a movement of people (mostly, toxic twitter users) who expressly do not want me to voice any opinion unless it agrees with them, they do this on the basis of my gender and race. I find this hypocritical in of itself, and it's one of the primary drivers of my victimhood.
Anyway, that's not to say that there are real issues to be address (I live in Sweden where many of these issues do not seem nearly as prescient as in the USA).
This coupled with those insidiously sexist: "the future is female" t-shirts and grossly sexist terms for condescending/obnoxious behaviour such as "mansplaining" or "manspreading" and I can see how some people are upset, myself included.
However, the fact that voicing any kind of opinion against this kind of behaviour leads to people trying to shut down the conversation and tar you with the troll/misogynist/"snowflake" brush is the _biggest_ factor to me feeling like any kind of victim in this narrative.
---
Anyway, this turned out to be even lengthier than I expected. But it's a nuanced subject and I've voiced a lot of opposition so I assume that anyone reading is thinking I'm some alt-right nazi and to those people I can only say to you:
I have really mulled this over for a long time. It's _IMPOSSIBLE_ to have a reasoned balanced opinion because both sides want to tear you down.
We're living in polarizing times and being "otherising" is not helping anyone; I implore you to read what I wrote in good faith and at least take stock that some men feel this way, even if you don't consider it valid.
We're all in this together and we should seek harmony.
Additionally; A good litmus test to see if something might upset people is to reverse the roles.
[0]: http://i.imgur.com/7YaVYUx.jpg
[1]: http://fortune.com/2016/04/12/women-are-out-earning-men/
[2]: https://www.quora.com/Why-are-significantly-more-women-than-...
Re: How shutting out men from the conversation is an obstacle to change
#8I suspect people will be reactionary because of the title, but the content is much different than what I was personally expecting. As a corollary to the article; I've always felt it's critical not to assume too much as a man. The line between being assertive and creepy is very fuzzy and depends entirely on the womans perception of you (which, is essentially unknowable). There is no easy answer, men will in most cases…
I’ve simply come to believe that online dating is the safest way for people to evaluate partners. There is demonstrated intent on both ends. It’s like google’s search intent being the value. Online dating provides safety through... intent of intimacy I guess
Re: How shutting out men from the conversation is an obstacle to change
#9Just as the article states. Treating a date as a binary yes/no doesn't work when people have contradictory feelings and desires. Perception is everything, and I'm not sure making a legal framework for consent with verbal and written that turns a quiet nonverbal lean in kiss into an assault, is fair to anyone.
This is why I always thought kids should have dating, bullying, assertive training classes. It won't fix every scenario, but it would help some of the misunderstandings, and train young people to be more responsive and communicative to others.
We have HR classes at work, but nothing for youn adults. We know teens will date each other, and hollywood movies don't count as traning. Lets fix this with some simple communication classes.
Re: How shutting out men from the conversation is an obstacle to change
#10I suspect people will be reactionary because of the title, but the content is much different than what I was personally expecting. As a corollary to the article; I've always felt it's critical not to assume too much as a man. The line between being assertive and creepy is very fuzzy and depends entirely on the womans perception of you (which, is essentially unknowable). There is no easy answer, men will in most cases…
I'm a single man, I date, and it's confusing as hell. The examples given in the article are no surprise to me since my whole adult life has been peppered with similar events. Women who later tell me they wanted to sleep with me but I didn't push hard enough, etc. Not pushing women to sleep with me has likely cost me a lot of opportunities, but it's also meant I haven't accidentally assaulted someone. On my birthday I had 5 previous sexual partners call or message to wish me a happy birthday, so I figure my philosophy of treating people well is doing ok.
How assertive should I be when interacting with women I am dating, given that every woman is a unique individual with their own preferences?