Divide ans conquer
Honestly these comments are giving me hope that people are being sensible.
Too often in leftists spaces the conversation is dominated by the loudest voices taking the most extreme black and white position. Which just pushes makes the culture war nonsense worse.
Damn, looking at these comments maybe lemmy isn’t any better than reddit. That is the underlying platform is, but not the people on it.
This gender war identity politics shit is just key jingling to distract the masses from the fact that the new robber barons are simultaneously fleecing everyone’s retirement and inserting a knife into our collective kidneys.
Glad to see a lot of comments just ain’t falling for it.
It’s not a distraction when you’re persecuted or otherwise systemically blocked in ways ranging from the inconvenient to life-altering every day for something you can’t control. I can take a wild guess what your demographic is.
It’s pretty easy to tell the difference between venomous and non-venomous snakes.
The venomous ones are female? /S
Wait how? That sounds useful to know.
Square or angular heads generally mean they’re venomous. Rounded heads mean non-venomous.
That doesn’t mean non-venomous is safe. They can still bite and could transfer a bacteria. If you don’t know for sure, just keep your distance.
I would like to point out the “generaly” here, I still would trust it more as a what is DEFINITLY venomous, not what is safe
and this is why women go with the bear instead of the men
I think the point is it is one species of snake that all looks the same yet some are venomous and others are not.
For example. What if some rattle snakes were not venomous but others, that looked exactly the same, were.
The point is is that it’s a bad analogy to support a shitty world view.
Didn’t we learn as children that stereotypes are bad and hurtful? Like why is this one an acceptable thing to lump all men together under the same group? The rhetoric rarely makes a distinction. It lazily doors not differentiate the different problem groups within that and stops at blanket statements that cover more people who aren’t the issues than are.
When you treat an entire gender as the enemy, stop being surprised when the young men are increasingly not acting like allies.
The entire problem was illustrated during the “man or bear” conversation. If your first reaction wasn’t “Wait, I should listen to why women are saying ‘bear’ in droves” and instead was “what the fuck that’s bullshit” then you’re part of the problem.
I don’t think that the original tweet is really getting at stereotypes, but rather pointing out how frustrating it must be to not know who’s going to be a scumbag and who is not.
It’s not all men, most certainly, yet chauvinism counties to be (an increasing problem). One of the (very make dominated) places I worked had to put up signs that read looking versus leering: know the difference. I’m male, and I most certainly get the frustration after hearing more than a few first hand accounts about how women are routinely mistreated.
The original tweet is a response to people who are annoyed at being stereotyped. I get it. I have daughters I wish didn’t have to worry about this shit. But I also think we’re not addressing the problem the right way. It’s actually making the problem worse and isolating people enough that they fall to the sway of fascist propaganda.
If you take this same tweet and swap out men with [your minority racial/religious/gender group of your choice] it’ll probably get you banned in most communities here. But it’s about men (generalized) so it is for some reason allowed.
If you take this same tweet and swap out men with [your minority racial/religious/gender group of your choice] it’ll probably get you banned in most communities here. But it’s about men (generalized) so it is for some reason allowed.
“If you take criticism of aggressors and swap it out to criticize their victims instead, it pisses people off.”
No shit, Sherlock! That’s because aggressors are different than victims.
Is black man an aggressor or a victim?
Fuck off with your bad-faith ‘gotcha’ question.
Bad faith is applying the same bad rhetoric/logic to two groups and act like it’s perfectly fine and reasonable in one instance but really awful in the other. Especially if one group is literally a subset of the other. It’s not a “gotcha”, it’s an attempt to make you realize what you’re doing. Prejudice is bad, no exceptions.
You arguement has no logical foundation
You determine if the subject is a victim or the aggressor depending on what narrative you shilling at that time.
This is disingenuous post modern subjectivist bullshit
Cheers ;)
You determine if the subject is a victim or the aggressor depending on what narrative you shilling at that time.
TIL that understanding context is “shilling for a narrative.” 🙄
You know what’s really “disingenuous post modern subjectivist bullshit?” Pretending that victims become aggressors just because they act in their own self-defense. And that’s what the “not all men” whiners in this thread are doing.
The power of rhetoric being forgotten is probably my chief criticism of the “purity test” wing of the left. Perfect being enemy of the good is very lost on people who seem not to want to acknowledge that even things they don’t like might have nuance.
Reminds me of when Donald Trump Jr. compared Syrian refugees to a bowl of M&Ms with some of them poisoned. Same argument, same mindset.
Here’s everyone’s daily reminder that, in the US at least, 40% of rapists are women, and fully half of rape victims are men.
And hollywood doesn’t help
Why is that pertinent to this meme?
::: TW: Discussion of sexual assault, rape, penetration, math
Ooooh, actually, I made the mistake of looking at where that claim came from, and it came from a comment they made. In it, for evidence of their math, they link to this article. The article is… something, but I’m setting that aside because the claim the article makes is patently incorrect; the data comes from this surveillance study at the CDC. (Got the link from the article, trying to leave an obvious path here.)
The claim is that the numbers are artificially uncoupled because the rape statistics for men don’t include forced penetration of another person, where the male is the victim. However, this is a line directly from the Results paragraph-
“An estimated 43.9% of women and 23.4% of men experienced other forms of sexual violence during their lifetimes, including being made to penetrate, sexual coercion, unwanted sexual contact, and noncontact unwanted sexual experiences. The percentages of women and men who experienced these other forms of sexual violence victimization in the 12 months preceding the survey were an estimated 5.5% and 5.1%, respectively.”
Emphasis mine.
The main premise of the Time article, a Time article written in 2014, that the report doesn’t include being made to penetrate is false. The 40% number isn’t backed up here, either, and heck, for the cherry on the sundae, I wouldn’t consider a “random-digit–dial telephone survey of the noninstitutionalized English- and Spanish-speaking U.S. population aged ≥18 years” to be the kind of study I’d value highest, regardless! The thing that the Time article is linking for it’s evidence is a summary of a series of phone surveys! It’s kind of an update-to-the-data thing… Why bother citing a random summary when we can just refer to the wholesale data the CDC was updating?
Since we clearly value the CDC reporting (since that was the only source used in the previous Time article), I’ll use them!
Here’s a webpage, from the CDC, titled ‘About Sexual Violence.’ Surprising perhaps no one, it states unequivocally the following:
Over half of women and almost one in three men have experienced sexual violence involving physical contact during their lifetimes.
Still concerned that the number here isn’t representing men being forced to penetrate someone? Well that CDC page has, after that sentence, a citation of a study- one done also by the CDC- but the weird thing is, they didn’t hyperlink it. That’s okay, they included the name of the study and the people who did the study, so I was able to find a PDF of the information, and now, you can view it here if you like as well. For clarity’s sake, this is titled, “The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey: 2016/2017 Report on Sexual Violence.” And in it, it defines sexual violence-
This report addresses five types of sexual violence. They include rape, being made to penetrate someone else (males only), sexual coercion, unwanted sexual contact, and sexual harassment in a public place.
Why is this important? Because even if you add together the 12.6 million men who reported being made to penetrate someone in his lifetime to the 4.5 million men who reported completed or attempted rape victimization at some point in his lifetime to get 17.1 million (as if there was zero overlap), and if you pretended that every single one of those victimizations was a woman assaulting a man with zero male on male aggression, out of the 166.1 billion men in the US, it would still only total to 10.29% of all men, overall, for their entire lifetime.
Your claim was that 40% of all rapes were female. Let’s roll this math forward.
Same page, 33.5 million women claim completed or attempted rape at some point in their entire lifetime (I have chosen to leave out any other types of sexual violence against women, to try and make this a more even thing, because I am actually trying to get as close to a good-faith number here as possible). Hm. Total victims here, 50.6 million, of that 50.6 million, we are generously saying 17.1 million are male (no overlap, straight math, all assaults and penetrations are counted separate).
Do I think that male numbers are underreported? Yes. I also think female numbers are underreported. I never reported any of the terrible things that happened to me, and I’m a woman- I know other women who have said the same thing. But misrepresenting these numbers helps no one, and inserting an article where someone claims erroneously that these numbers don’t reflect reality, and using that as your only source, really doesn’t help. If we want to help, we have to provide factual, no-nonsense information, and we have to provide resources for survivors, not skew information to try and make the awful, awful reality look different than it is.
:::
Wow, what a spinjob, all to conclude that the number is ackshually just 34% instead of 40% when you use the CDC’s lifetime data instead of their year-over-year data like I did in my calculation. This is to be compared, of course, to all of the “95% of rapists are men” signs and infodocs drawing from the CDC’s incredibly misleading “rape” figures, but it doesn’t sound like you’d be quite as concerned about that much more prevalent, much more inaccurate, and much more damaging discrepancy.
Anyhow, based directly on the CDC’s year over year data from the three years they’ve released the report, as I detailed in my other comment, yes, 40% of rapists are women, and I think it’s pretty disgusting how much effort you were willing to go through to wiggle out of so few percent, all just to minimize male victims of rape as much as you can.
There’s a part where they explain the 34% is based off of all male victims, assuming that none of the abusers were male. They’re trying to say that even their estimate of 34% is likely an over estimate of how many women are abusing people.
Not that that means men aren’t getting abused or what have you, but I don’t think it was a spin job. Just a breakdown of the numbers.
Yes, I understand that, which was why in the comment I linked to I was careful to be much more precise, including both the numbers of male victims with male perpetrators (which according to the CDC was low enough in 2011 to be statistically insignificant) and the number of male victims with female perpetrators.
And this is still very much a spinjob. The tone of their comment is chiding and patronizing while acting like they’re just “correcting the record”, minimizing and undermining the CDC numbers I’m quoting as much as they can even as they arrive at a more imprecise number only slightly lower than mine.
If you’d like an actual breakdown of the numbers, please refer to the comment I linked to above, which goes into much more detail with the numbers from the CDC report.
I’m a bit wary of the 2011 stat for male victims with male perpetrators. Not that I don’t believe women make up a significant number of abusers, nor that it should be ignored, but the idea that men on men assault is that low seems out of place with other factors, like child abuse cases, prison/military cases, same sex couples/assault, or even medical facility cases. If we take the 40% of rapists are women, and the remaining 60% are men, I honestly can’t imagine that only a fraction of those men hurt other men. Enough to out weight female perpetrators? I don’t think so, at least not from any statistics I’m seeing (most recent I found was about 12% for male child abuse victims specifically, which is still quite “low” since that would leave the remaining 88% perpetrators as female(or other?) Not to mention men are less likely to report rape, let alone penatrative rape (thanks society). I don’t know if there’s any number that would make me go “Oh, it’s not that bad,” but I don’t think men on men violence is as uncommon.
But numbers are numbers. Probably just my own bias trying to work around it 🤷🏿♀️
I’m a bit wary of the 2011 stat for male victims with male perpetrators.
Yeah, honestly I felt the same way when I first looked at the numbers, but they seem to be confirmed in the CDC 2015 and 2017 studies as well. I even tried to find independent numbers of, for example, male on male sexual assault in prisons to make sure I wasn’t accidentally excluding relevant data.
It’s also worth mentioning that, as flicker said, it’s impossible to know the huge amount of male- and female-perpetrated and male- and female-victim cases that go unreported each year, which would certainly result in significantly different numbers as well.
I’m just reading this thread and finding it hilarious how many are triggered by this. The post isn’t even saying “all men” do anything, it’s specifically pointing out a small subset of men.
I think Lemmy might be growing up and attracting brigading Reddit CHUDs.
I like to think about Lemmy comments as coming from 30 of my closest autistic friends.
Holy shit.
This comment section is amazing. Good job all
I’m going to ignore the most heinous aspects of this and just say, I’d love to be introduced to a variety of venomous and non-venomous snakes and would likely find it to be a pretty cool experience. Snakes are neat and the venomous ones are often beautiful and fascinating.
I’m with you.
One might try learning a little bit about snakes before being introduced to them. I’d probably do that. I wouldn’t want to be around a bunch of snakes and not have at least an idea of how to differentiate a poisonous snake from a friendly, non harmful snake.
If I were to assume that all of the snakes are bad or going to hurt me, I’d sure be a real dummy. There’s so much information available out there and as an adult I’m able to use that info to stay safe.
Even better that I’ll be introduced to snakes and that I wont be walking out into the jungle alone, without knowledge, agitating the leglesss wildlife. Should I infer that there’s going to be an expert there too? Makes it sound pretty cool.
Have some empathy for the large amount of regular dudes that wouldn’t hurt a fly but constantly get lobbed in with rapists and pedos.
So we’re fixing the division along gender lines by becoming… more divided?
Feels like the insinuation here is that, as a woman, it’s acceptable to base your personality on men as long as you believe all men base their personalities on hating women.
Maybe just accept that humans are complicated and nuanced and you can’t judge an entire gender based on the actions of the worst members of that gender.
And some of them are poisonous. You need to eat snakes to procreate.
I think the point is that people who say (shout) “Not All Men” are usually frustratingly insensitive and the thought of throwing them into a snake pit is fun. We know it’s not all men, we aren’t stupid, but we also know that even 1% would be one percent too many to feel safe alone with a stranger (and, unfortunately, statistics suggest harassment is certainly more than 1%!).
Well, most people aren’t that stupid. There’s a few who are, but I don’t think they’d be posting here, lol.
That said, reading the comments, I get why some are offended even though being male is the privileged class in this comparison (after all, I don’t feel afraid to walk home at 1am). Men are fucked by the patriarchy, told to repress their emotions, degrade people who break from masculinity, and so forth. But instead of saying “you’re being sexist against men,” please try to think of the systemic problems that led to that X% of assholes who make it unsafe for a woman (or POC, LGBTQ, etc) to walk alone on a street in America.
after all, I don’t feel afraid to walk home at 1am
That is not because you are part of a “class”. It might be your fully personal thing, it depends on your previous experiences, it depends on where you live or go (and this can also be an expression of being in a privileged social class), etc.
Depending on where I go, I do not feel safe walking alone all the time. I do not consider being sexually assaulted among the possibilities, but instead perhaps being mugged, or be bothered by someone looking for trouble or wanting to feel “alpha male” (as someone who grew up in rough neighborhoods, this is way too common during teen years).
I really don’t understand where this idea that males have the privilege of going outside without ever worrying about anything comes from. I have seen it multiple times in discussions around this topic.
There can be multiple factors, we call it intersectionality. You’re feeling unsafe because of social class or nationality or another factor. That does not mean you do not benefit from being male in a world ultimately built around men. That’s why people use the term privilege, since you have at least one advantage (others could include health, straightness, etc). And fortunately it’s less of an advantage today than it was a hundred years ago.
And that’s not to say life is perfect under that category-- I literally just mentioned some men’s issues. I’m just not exactly worried about someone stalking or kidnapping me over it.
You’re feeling unsafe because of social class or nationality or another factor.
Not in this case. I just do not feel safe because crime exists, and I can become a victim roughly as much as anybody else (probably slightly less than an elder person, in some cases for example). Some other people might have additional worries (like being attacked for racial motives), of course.
That does not mean you do not benefit from being male in a world ultimately built around men.
Which is something I have never claimed. What I challenged is the view that such privilege materializes in being able to roam free and fearless everywhere and whenever.
I’m just not exactly worried about someone stalking or kidnapping me over it.
Of course, there might be a qualitative difference in which worries I have vs someone else, but the original comment suggested “not worrying”, which I find it absolutely unrealistic.
I understand the problem people have with men and more specifically toxic masculinity, but this gender wars bullshit only serves to further separate people. What’s the purpose of saying “men are rapists” or “men are violent”? It’s fine in the context of venting/talking with people facing similar problems, but because it entirely misses the sociological causes, it can cause people come to incorrect conclusions like “kill all men” or “all men are inherently bad because…” which essentialises their gender.
Men aren’t inherently bad. It’s patriarchy and toxic masculinity that you should be upset at - two sides of the same coin, really.
men aren’t inherently bad… Etc.
Looks like you understand the intent of the original tweet.
Not all men - but some men - and we (other men) need to start calling our the Tater-tots and the like
Why not say that instead of using needlessly divisive blanket statements?
On the other hand, calling out random assholes is a good way to get punched in the face, especially as a man. People aren’t grossly misbehaving because they accidentally forgot their manners at home that evening.
Sure. After all the big religions start weeding out shitty members at every single level. Youd get rid of a lot of rapists that way.
