Important clarification/FAQ
I am not calling to coddle or excuse the behavior of bigoted men in any way!
I am calling to be kind and understanding to young men (often ages 10-20) who are very manipulable and succeptible to the massive anti feminist propaganda machine. Hope this clarifies that very important distinction. :)
Very good comments that express key points:
- Detailed summary of the situation if you're wondering what's going on
- The rhetorical value of the bear hypothetical and what this means for you
- One example of why the long-term rhetorical value of the hypothetical is poor, in the context of intersectionality
- What does disenfranchisement mean in this context?
- The importance of not asking women to tone down their expressions of fear and frustration
- "But why can't they just say it nicely?"
- The importance of participation in kindness toward young men, specifically outside the context of people speaking their experiences
Edit: This post has now been removed and restored twice. I want to encourage you all:
Be decent to one another
I think this post is a valuable thing given the current state of the Fediverse, please don't fuck it up for us by being toxic in the comments.
Follow up question: What would be a practical example on how to achieve this? To not push men out of civilized communities that is.
Let us talk, dont immediately shut us up if we aren't actively harming the discussion, let men know that their feelings are valid too but that they dont overshadow others feelings (jumping straight to that second half is NOT helpful). Let memes like this one exist without deleting them for lumping them in with the angry assholes
👆👆🗣️🗣️
I think it has to happen in person.
At the heart of this is the unfortunate fact that nuance is lost in online discussion. The reason that the bear scenario is so notable is it is so polarising. "yes! That's how I feel!" vs "you're reducing me to a threat"
An honest and direct conversation between two peers is far more likely to have a lasting effect. Hearing what the lived experience is directly from the person who's experiencing it is far, far more more compelling than the stark bear statement.
I don't feel unsafe most of the time. But I have felt unsafe and vulnerable before. Thus when a female colleague told me about being followed by a guy in a park while walking her dog, and feeling torn between straight running away and keeping her pet safe, it resonated directly with me. I could see her reliving the experience and see her distress. She shouldn't have to go through that. It's not fair.
That conversation resonated far more completely than the bear tweet.
I don't even think it has to be like, in person, necessarily, I just think it needs to be engaged with in good faith outside of like, the framing of the conversation as being spurned on by some sort of hypothetical, or being spurned on without like. Reportage between two people, without a relationship there pre-established. I've definitely had compelling conversations online, it's just that it happens so often to be kind of, in spite of the larger machine they took place inside of.
The reason I say in person is because if the amount of information which is transmitted via direct conversation is orders of magnitude higher than through eye contact, tone, language and body language.
If you and I were talking right now, I could maintain eye contact, rotate my shoulders so I face you, position my head in a way that says I'm listening, use my voice to indicate that I'm contrite, or uncomfortable, or supportive.
It can be excruciatingly uncomfortable for people who are used to having virtual tools abstract away the hard parts of interaction. But that's exactly what (in this case) women are saying they feel. They feel, in the real world, they're not safe. To me, the weight of that comes from a direct interaction rather than a news article or twitter post.
My opinion etc